Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Rivers Act (Effluent Plant Expenditure)

Sir H. Sutcliffe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far since the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Inland Revenue have been authorised to permit as an expense for taxation purposes, expenditure compulsorily incurred in the installation of trade effluent plants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am advised that such expenditure is of a capital nature, and not therefore allowable as an expense for taxation purposes. Capital expenditure on the construction of industrial buildings or on the provision of machinery or plant would, however, rank for the statutory allowances given in respect of such expenditure.

Sir H. Sutcliffe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some firms will have to pay immense sums to install these plants, out of all proportion to the amount of capital in those companies for production purposes, and that this expenditure has to be capitalised over a period of 50 years and is in the nature of sunk capital? Is he aware that this is really a very serious matter for many firms and will he look into the problem again?

Mr. Butler: All that I can do is to carry out the law as it stands. I am aware of my hon. Friend's difficulties. Indeed, he wrote to me about them and I sent him the best reply that I could. I am sorry that in the present circumstances I cannot go further, but I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to improvements in respect of certain types of capital expenditure—buildings and so forth—in this year's Finance Bill.

Mr. Fort: Whilst welcoming the improvements to which my right hon. Friend has referred, in view of the fact that it is the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House that our rivers should be cleared within a reasonable length of time, may I ask if he would undertake to consider this problem when he goes into matters for next year's Finance Bill?

Mr. Butler: These and many other matters will obviously be before me, and the pressure of my hon. Friend will do no harm.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that unless industrial undertakings can undertake expenditure on this kind of machinery or equipment the rivers boards will be unable to keep the fishery waters as clear and clean as they ought to be?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the point which the right hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention.

Bank Bills (Discount Rates)

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he will take to modify the high discount rate for bank bills in view of the current decline in the volume of bills discounted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: These rates are settled in the market. They are of course influenced by monetary policy which, as I have stated, is under continuous review.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that even since I put this Question on the Order Paper a further statement has been issued by the clearing banks showing another serious decline in bank bills? In view of the fact that this is a very valuable source of foreign invisible earnings, does he not think that the time has come to take steps to prevent these losses of invisible earnings to this country?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but I cannot add to my answer.

Purchase Tax (Retail Stocks)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to avoid the disruption of the retail trade in articles subject to Purchase Tax which will be experienced in the first quarter of 1954 if traders and consumers are left without guidance about the likelihood of changes in the rate of tax; what recent consultations he has had with representatives of traders; and what current instructions his officials have to seek a solution to this problem.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall watch the position very carefully. I cannot add to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on this subject on 22nd June during the Finance Bill debates.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are two very serious factors implicit in this Question? One is the loss which the trader suffers when Purchase Tax is reduced, as we hope it will be, and the other is the disruption of trade by the uncertainty in the minds of traders about what is going to happen to Purchase Tax and when it will happen. Will my right hon. Friend keep these factors in mind when framing his next Budget?

Mr. Butler: Yes; of course, they have been very much in my mind, and I only hope that the traders will try to be as calm as they possibly can in these difficult circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very difficult to expect the trading community to be

calm when they have this great worry hanging over them all the time? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman throw even a glimmer of light to help to relieve the trading community of their anxiety?

Mr. Butler: I cannot alter the financial procedure under which we have our Budget annually. There are, of course, powers to alter Purchase Tax at all times of the year, but I cannot alter those powers either.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state the policy of the Government arising out of the Grant Committee on valuation of goods for the purpose of Purchase Tax.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am still receiving representations from the trade associations, and I have nothing further to add to my statement on this matter at the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Jay: As the Chancellor has now had this Report for about four months, and as it was thoroughly considered by this Committee for a whole year, with all these representations before it, why is it that the Chancellor cannot make up his mind even now?

Mr. Butler: The first reason is that there was a majority and a minority Report, both of which have to be examined. The second reason is, as I stated in the Finance Bill debate, that we have not received anything like a unanimity of opinion from the trade associations consulted as to their choice between the majority and minority Reports or as to alternative suggestions. When I can get a clear picture I shall make a clear decision.

Mr. Jay: How is it that the Chancellor was able to make up his mind in quite the contrary sense to all the trade representations which he had received on the Hutton Report?

Mr. Butler: The Hutton Report was a unanimous Report and we were able to accept it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the Chancellor at any rate give some approximate idea of how long it will take him to reach a conclusion on this matter?

Mr. Butler: I could not give an exact date, but I am aware of the importance


attached to the question by hon. Members, some of whom are personally interested in it. I shall come to a decision as soon as I reasonably can.

U.S.A. Charities (U.K. Subscriptions)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are permissible under his regulations for the payment in the United States of America of moneys collected in this country for charitable purposes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Charities incorporated in the United Kingdom are allowed to remit funds to the United States of America, as to other countries, according to their reasonable needs and commitments. Individual subscriptions to charities incorporated abroad are not normally permitted.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a fund which has recently been established in this country whereby moneys are collected ostensibly for the relief of the children of the recently executed Rosenbergs in America? Will the Chancellor make sure that facilities are provided for this money to be sent to America in order to prevent it being spent on Communist propaganda in this country?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider any representations which the hon. Member makes.

Northern Ireland and U.K. (Financial Relations)

Mr. Logan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the amount provisionally fixed as the Exchequer grant to the Northern Ireland Exchequer for 1952–53 under Section 63 of the National Insurance Act, 1946; the amount paid so far; and also the amount of old Land Annuities collected and retained by Northern Ireland Exchequer for the last financial year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No Exchequer grants to the Northern Ireland Exchequer are made under Section 63 of the National Insurance Act. This Section enables financial adjustments to be made between the Insurance Funds of the two countries to keep them in parity. For the year 1952–53 payments on account

are being made from the National Insurance Fund to the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund on the basis of the amount determined for the previous year, namely£2,200,000;£600,000 has so far been paid.
I have no information about the amount of the Land Purchase annuities collected under Section 26 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I only received this morning the figures published in Northern Ireland, and that they substantiate my remarks last week when the Financial Secretary contradicted my statement that the sum of£9 million was the amount? I find that the figure that has been audited and found to be correct in Northern Ireland is£9,628,000. I am at a loss, with debit and credit accounts, to understand the accountancy system unless I am able to get accurate figures, and I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that£9,628,000 is accurate.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman asked about subsidies and not about the fund payment. When it is related to the fund payment, the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct.

Mr. Logan: All inclusive?

Mr. Healy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Northern Ireland have received by way of grants and subsidies more than is paid by way of Imperial contribution? Is that not, in effect, an effort by this Government to make the partition of Ireland work? Otherwise we might have a united Ireland.

Mr. Butler: I think that raises a different question, but there is something in what the hon. Member says.

Panamanian Shipping Companies (British Capital)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of British capital invested in Panamanian shipping companies; and what action he is taking to discourage British investors from using a foreign flag in order to avoid their obligations under the Merchant Shipping and other Acts.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that the information is not available. I cannot trace any applications for approval to remit money for this purpose during recent years. If such an application were made it would be considered on its merits.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Chancellor aware of the continued reports of British capital invested in ships that carry the Panama flag and that this is done in order that the shipowner may avoid his obligations under the Merchant Shipping Act, and that the men are employed at a substandard wage? Will he discourage this practice and inform bona fide shipowners that he will do all he possibly can to help them in their struggle against these kind of investors?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I will certainly consider any information which the hon. Member can send me which will help me to investigate the matter.

Foreign Travel Allowance

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a resident in Australia is allowed every year a travel allowance of£150 in non-sterling countries; and why a resident in this country is allowed little more than a quarter of this amount.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The circumstances—such as the distance and frequency of foreign travel—are very different in the two cases.

Sir E. Keeling: But as it is a fact that Australians can get£150 every year, whereas other people in the sterling area distant from Europe can only get£40 a year and accumulate it for three years, can we not be told whether the Chancellor has any idea how many Australians, in fact, get£150 every year

Mr. Butler: Fortunately, I do not have to answer for the Australian Government.

Public Expenditure

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the increasing burden of public expenditure, details of which have been sent to him; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir, I shall continue to search for all practicable economies in public expenditure.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend always bear in mind that this is the one country in the world which is not and cannot become self-supporting, and that every increase in our national expenditure must increase our overheads and will destroy our chances of competing successfully in world markets, which we must do or starve? If he will not listen to me, will he read his own Bulletin for Industry?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now making a speech. If he wishes to ask a question, will he do so?

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask this question? Will my right hon. Friend read his own Bulletin for Industry for the month of June, which is headed "Production Recovers, but—" and act on it?

Mr. Butler: I can answer that question by saying that I am well aware of the contents of that document, as I had a good deal to do with it. In reply to the first part of the supplementary, any expenditure on production, of course, helps us.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor doing anything to keep down expenditure on the National Debt interest which has risen so steeply in the last two years?

Mr. Butler: Had it not been for the monetary policy of the Government, we should not be in the good position that we are in now.

Trade Barriers

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has read the fourth annual report of the International Monetary Fund, which recommends that maximum efforts should be made by all countries to facilitate access of goods and services to their markets; what steps he is taking to implement this policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. We continue to free imports and markets wherever this can be done without serious risks for our reserves and our balance of payments. There are, however, limits to the pace at which we can advance, and the report to which the hon. Member refers stresses the decisive importance of action by creditor countries to permit a freer flow of trade.

Sir W. Smithers: May I thank the Chancellor for that somewhat encouraging answer? May I also ask if he is aware that not only the economic salvation of this country but world peace depend on removing barriers to trade, because if trade is not allowed to cross frontiers, armies will?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I am fully aware of those considerations.

Territorial Officers (Income Tax)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to relieve Territorial officers from paying Income Tax on pay received on training or in camp, particulars of which have been sent him.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. Training expenses allowance is free of Income tax, but I am afraid that it would not be fair to others performing paid public service to treat exceptionally the pay received by Territorial officers.

Sir W. Smithers: If these gentlemen loyally give their service, surely we ought to do all we can to encourage them?

University

Academic Year



1947–48
1948–49
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52




£
£
£
£
£


Aberdeen
…
2,000
4,500
5,450
6,650
8,850


Edinburgh
…
—
5,500
8,100
10,650
13,400


Glasgow
…
2,000
8,000
12,100
17,050
21,350


St. Andrew's
…
—
3,500
5,050
6,650
7,400


Total for Scottish Universities
…
4,000
21,500
30,700
41,000
51,000

Tax Arrears (Distraint)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases during the past year goods and chattels have been distrained by the Income Tax authorities; how much tax was recovered as a result; and how the figures compare with the previous year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that this information could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of expense and effort.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the

Mr. Butler: We do a certain amount They have training pay and allowances for exceptional periods of training. They have an annual bounty and a training expense allowance. I am fully aware of the good service which they render.

Scottish University Grants (Social Sciences)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the grants of the University Grants Committee, earmarked for developments in the social sciences, were made to Scottish universities; and if he will give details.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As the answer involves giving a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Grants earmarked for development in the social sciences made by the Treasury on the recommendation of the University Grants Committee to Scottish Universities.

advisability of removing from tax officers a right which they alone in the whole of the community possess, namely, the power to issue a warrant on their own initiative to distrain the goods of any citizen? Is it not time that that aspect of the law was changed and that tax collectors were put in the same position as any other creditors?

Mr. Butler: I do not think I agree. I think that without this power we might be in trouble. I also remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the great majority of distraint court cases we do not have to press to actual levy.

Post-War Credits

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the widespread demand for a change in the method of repayment of post-war credits; and whether he will appoint a Select Committee to consider the problem from a human as well as a financial aspect and to make recommendations for the relief of hardship and the removal of anomalies.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am aware of the general concern over the problem of postwar credits. The question of paying in hardship cases has, however, been fully examined under successive Administrations, and I must therefore answer the last part of the Question in the negative.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Chancellor's mind closed to the possibilities of changing the present method of paying out post-war credits? Will not he offer some help to those people who feel very upset and embarrassed at the present method of paying them?

Mr. Butler: My mind is not closed at all. I am fully sympathetic with the cases, but I do not want to hold out any false hopes, and therefore I prefer to say no more.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will institute an inquiry to examine the possibility of paying post-war credits in cases of special hardship.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think that a special inquiry into this matter would help to overcome the very real difficulties of which I am aware.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such an inquiry might help him? Different Treasury Ministers at various times have said that the main difficulty is administrative. Would it not be a good thing to have a fresh look at this matter to see whether those difficulties could be overcome?

Mr. Butler: I must sincerely say that we are aware of the difficulties and have the information. If there is any fault or blame it could be laid at my door for not having been able to do this, but I have not yet been able conscientiously to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that many poorer people who are suffering

hardships feel, and have felt for a long time, that it would have been better for him to have repaid those post-war credits to the poorer people than to have given Income Tax rebates to the rich in the last Budget?

Mr. Butler: The object of the Budget was to stimulate production and in that way to help all classes in the country and to save our national position. I am glad to say that the Budget is already having a beneficial effect in this direction.

Sir H. Williams: Does not the Chancellor agree that if any private person treated his creditors as badly as the State treats its creditors, he would probably land in jail?

Engineering and Technology (University Grants)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of places not taken up during the session 1952–53 for students of engineering and technology in the universities and colleges on the University Grants Committee's list.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No figures are available centrally, but I have no reason to think that facilities for engineering or technology in universities and colleges have anywhere been inadequately utilised.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure of about 250 places was given authoritatively a short time ago? Does not he agree that this is a serious matter for the country at the present time? Will he give some attention not merely to the question of extending facilities for technological education, but to encouraging students to come forward to take these places?

Mr. Butler: I agree with the hon. Member that the last point he raised is very important indeed, but I reflect that in October last year there were 8,643 such full-time students, compared with 8,580 in the previous year. Before the war there were 5,288, so the figures are improving.

Dividends

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present policy of the Government towards the payment of increased dividends.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Voluntary restraint rather than statutory regulation.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the iron and steel companies at present owned by the Government, through the Iron and Steel Realisation Agency, will set an example voluntarily in that respect?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope that they will.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the increasing cost of our imports, as shown in the monthly returns, can be met without involving us in an adverse balance of payments at the end of the year.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the declining export figures and the rise in bank deposits, he is satisfied with his provisions against inflation; and what further steps he is taking to strengthen our balance of payments position.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It has been the constant objective of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that our balance of payments position is soundly based. In order to ensure that there will be an adequate surplus on current external account over and above the balance which we expect for some time ahead, it is essential that we should expand our exports. The rising curve of production must continue to contribute to this end. I am, of course, constantly alive to the danger of any return of inflation.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend also realise the possible danger of relying upon increased exports which do not materialise? Ought not consideration to be given to other measures?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that there may be difficulty in selling our exports abroad, but I am also aware that there are signs of improvement within the internal economy. The hon. Member should realise that the importance of this question is ever present to my mind.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Chancellor really think that an exhortation to increase exports is enough? Does not he think that some positive steps must be taken by the Government, both to increase exports and to curb home consumption of certain types of goods?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that we are continually active in the task of trying to promote exports, but it cannot be done by the Government alone. In so far as the Government can help, various plans are on foot for increased credits, for improving the search for markets, and in other ways. I am aware of the importance which the hon. Member attaches to this matter.

Mr. Jay: If the present tendency for imports to increase faster than exports continues, what further steps do the Government propose to take?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that owing to the increase in production which the right hon. Gentleman and others so much wanted there has been a tendency for imports to increase. It is that particular aspect which we watch at the same time as we watch the others.

Stationery Office (Printing Charges)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations still provide that organisations receiving Treasury grants must pay Her Majesty's Stationery Office 12½ per cent. on all printing, even when this is placed direct with outside firms.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Stationery Office are required to recover from grant-aided bodies the full cost of services provided: the addition of 12½ per cent. to prime cost is calculated to recover Departmental expenses. No payment is due to the Stationery Office for printing executed under arrangements not made by that Department.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend see that this information is imparted to grant-aided bodies, since several directives issued in the past have given the impression that orders placed with outside firms are still subject to 12½ per cent. service fees?

Mr. Butler: I am doing my best to follow this up.

Local Authority Loans

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make inquiries into the expenditure incurred by local authorities in floating new loans

Mr. R. A. Butler: I see no reason to interfere with the freedom of local authorities to make their own arrangements for raising loans.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that some local authorities want to borrow money for shorter periods than 20 years? Is he aware that these authorities have been compelled to go to the privately organised moneylenders, who make considerable charges?

Mr. Butler: There is a variety of facilities for local authorities. I am glad to say that we have now added this further one, of letting them return to their old practice of going into the market. I should not like to interfere with the discretion of local authorities to choose which method they think best.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed the signal success of his policy in encouraging local authorities to go to the money market, as has been evidenced by the great success of loans floated by the cities of Birmingham and Liverpool?

£Sterling (Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that National Savings Certificates, along with all fixed interest-bearing stocks have lost two-thirds of their value since 1939 through depreciation, he will make a statement on the probable future value of the£sterling, and indicate at what level he hopes to stabilise this in the near future, and so prevent the penalising of thrift and encourage the voluntary workers in the National Savings movement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would hesitate to predict the future, but I can assure the hon. Member that the stability of the£sterling is one of the main objects of the Government's economic policy. By practising thrift everyone can help to achieve this object.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the magnificent work that has been done for many years by the voluntary workers in the National Savings movement, would the Chancellor take every opportunity he can to assist them in their work by showing them that the stability of the£will be watched very carefully?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly, Sir, and we have had a considerable success in this field already.

Whisky (Excise Duty)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Excise was raised by the sale of 6,300,000 gallons of whisky in 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About 3·8 million proof gallons of whisky were consumed in the United Kingdom in 1952, and the resulting Excise revenue was a little more than£40 million.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor this Question: As 6,300,000 gallons was precisely the amount exported to America, would not it have been better if rather less had been exported to America and rather more consumed here, and a higher price charged to America, thereby benefiting the dollar balance and the Exchequer at this end?

Mr. Butler: From the Excise point of view the shortage of whisky in this respect has been largely, if not entirely, made good by the increased consumption of other spirits, mainly gin, so that the Excise have nothing to complain of. In regard to the American trade, I am glad to say that we have made a large number of dollars, and the more we make the better.

Mr. Stokes: Has the Chancellor really taken the trouble to examine the whole question of the export of whisky to the United States? Is he really satisfied that distillers in this country charge enough for their exports and are not maintaining an unnecessarily low price in order to assist the distributors in America?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I have been following with fascination the Questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put, mainly to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, by whom I have been fully briefed on the subject. I shall accept any further information which the right hon. Gentleman can give me so that I can watch this question of dollar trade.

Mr. Duthie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scotch Whisky Association is a body of extremely able men, who have the advantage over the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) of knowing all the conditions appertaining to their business?

Mr. Stokes: Before the Chancellor answers that question, is he aware that I am perfectly aware of the ability of the Scotch whisky distillers, but I want to know if he is satisfied that we are not being prejudiced by their distributing all their Scotch whisky through their competitors in the United States?

Mr. Butler: I am always willing to take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) on this matter, particularly as I have had the opportunity of meeting the distillers and learning their wisdom. However, I shall add to that anything which the right hon. Gentleman can supply.

Mr. Gower: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that in the late 18th Century, at Boston, we priced ourselves out of the market for tea in the United States?

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to provide separate returns of income derived from Wales by direct and indirect taxation to provide a reasonable basis for comparison with England and Scotland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have carefully considered this matter again, but I regret that the preparation of such returns would involve an inordinate amount of labour and in the result would not provide a fair basis for comparison.

Mr. Gower: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that while the Welsh economy is closely linked up with that of England, so are the economies of Scotland and Ulster? Will he carefully note the views expressed by moderate opinion in Wales, by members of all parties, including spokesmen like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore?

Mr. Butler: I have not actually studied the noble Lord's view, but I am aware of the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on this matter, in which he drew attention to the very great difficulty of collecting the figures and statistics to provide us with the necessary picture.

Wages and Production (Chancellor's Speech)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish as a White Paper the full text of the statement

he made on Wednesday, 22nd July, to the Ministry of Labour National Joint Advisory Council on the danger of pay increases without higher output and the consequent danger to our exporting industries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With the approval of the National Joint Advisory Council the Ministry of Labour is printing the text of the address, which will be available to the Council's constituent bodies for distribution to their members as they think fit. I trust this will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement was an extraordinarily good one? Will he see that the cost of printing does not prevent copies from being sent to every trade unionist and every employer in the country?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that I am still capable of occasionally making a good statement.

Capital Investment (Movement of Labour)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an indication, from the figures of movements of labour or from other sources, of the success of his policy of tilting the balance of the economy towards investment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The latest employment figures extend only to May. There has been a pronounced increase in building licences for manufacturing industry.

Mr. Jenkins: But the Chancellor will surely agree that the latest labour figures which we have indicate a most disturbing movement away from the metal and engineering trades and towards the consumer and distributive trades, which is out of line with the policy which he announced in his Budget? Does he propose to take any further steps to deal with that situation?

Mr. Butler: The real difficulty in analysing this result of the Budget is that we have not the figures for a long enough period to see the effect. No doubt the hon. Member will follow this up. We are just as anxious to see labour properly distributed as he is.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the fact that the necessary investment should be productive investment, will the Chancellor say when he proposes to tackle the question of finance for the Government housing programme and whether he intends any change in the interest rate?

Mr. Butler: If we had not supported the housing programme, we should not have achieved a success which hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite were unable to achieve.

Tobacco (Dollar Purchases)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the maximum sums in dollars which he is prepared to make available to tobacco importers in this country for the purchase of United States and Canadian tobacco, respectively, in the current year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The disclosure of such information inevitably affects the market. It would be imprudent to publicise our intentions before the auctions are completed.

Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of that answer because of the noise going on. May I ask the Chancellor whether the encouraging growth, proportionately, in the amount available for Canadian purchases will go on? Secondly, is he satisfied that all available tobacco in the sterling area is being imported by British tobacco importers so as to save dollars?

Mr. Butler: We are certainly doing our best to buy tobacco where we can at the best possible price.

Heavy Capital Goods

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the longest and widest terms that have been allowed on the sale of heavy capital goods overseas as a result of the recent directive to the Exchange Control.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the national interest I regret that I cannot give this information.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend able to go as far as to say that the terms now being offered to British exporters are at least as good as any being offered by other competitor countries?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to give an answer straight off on that subject, but I will investigate it so as to give an accurate reply to my hon. Friend.

P.O. Savings Bank Books (Tax Notices)

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Financial Secretary of the Treasury whether a decision has yet been reached on the suggestion to print in Post Office Savings bank books a note about liability to Income Tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have decided to accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, and new Post Office Savings Bank books will in future contain a reminder that depositors who make a return of income for Income Tax purposes should include therein any interest on the deposits.

Sir J. Crowder: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will consult his noble Friend the Postmaster-General with a view to giving more publicity by means of posters in the Post Office to the desirability for some people of buying savings certificates which are, of course, not liable to tax? In many cases it seems that the public do not know the advantages of these savings certificates.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I always pay attention to my hon. Friend's suggestions, but, of course, the publicity in respect of national savings is in general undertaken, in my view most efficiently, by the National Savings Committees.

Omnibus Industry (Tax)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what representations he has received about the discrimination of taxation and about town and country omnibus services; and what reply he proposes to give to the representations he has received.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the general question of discriminatory taxation my experience has been that those who would benefit from it are in favour of it, and those who would not benefit from it are against it. So far as town and country omnibus services are concerned, if what the hon. Member has in mind is duties


on fuel, the interests concerned make frequent representations that these should be reduced.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps the hon. Member will now answer the Question on the Order Paper: what representations has he received from organisations connected with the omnibus industry telling him in plain unvarnished language that he misled the House on 24th June?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Member re-reads his own Question, he will appreciate that it is perhaps not susceptible of a very easy answer. As for his supplementary question, this matter was debated, as he knows perfectly well, during the discussions on the Committee and Report stage of the Finance Bill. The attention of those organisations who have made representations has been drawn to the fact that the House decided against those views, and the reasons for which the House did so have also been drawn to their attention.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House this: did he receive any representations? That is all we want to know.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to study my original answer he will know.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOUTH NAVAL COLLEGE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATION)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the Civil Service Commission are bound in examinations such as those for entry to Dartmouth Naval College in which they act as agents for the Admiralty, to accept changes proposed by the Admiralty in the conditions for the examinations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Commissioners would not be bound to accept any such changes.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the remarkable decision by the Admiralty to change the conditions half-way through the May. 1952, examination, would the Financial Secretary consider suggesting to the Commission that they should take over the control of the examination from the Admiralty?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Member has had time to study my answer

he will see that the change effected in the conditions had nothing whatever to do with the Admiralty.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that in that case he is lowering the very well deserved reputation for impartiality which the Commission have heretofore enjoyed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As already explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the adjustments in the conditions of this examination were made when the attention of the Commissioners was drawn by the headmaster concerned to a manifest defect in the arrangements and, being sensible people, when a defect was pointed out they put it right.

Mr. Callaghan: As these changes could not apply to all candidates, what does the Financial Secretary think are the views of those who were not subject to the benefit of this modification?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The modification was made with respect to all the candidates taking that examination who would be affected by it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Agricultural Land (Restoration)

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that it is important that firms who seek to extract clay from good agricultural land should restore back as far as possible the land to its original state; and how far his regulations cover the position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): Restoration is important wherever minerals are extracted from fertile land; though what is possible varies from case to case. Local planning authorities can and do require restoration in suitable cases.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great play has been made in this House about the unsightly pits we have all up and down the country, and that even at this moment there are opencast sites where coal has been extracted 60 feet down in the earth? Does he not think that some of the sites that we see


travelling between the north and London where clay has been extracted are very unsightly, and that some pressure ought to be brought to bear to have the land put back into productive use?

Mr. Marples: I have only stated the general principle. Restoration is much easier where the working is shallow than where it is below the water table level. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he would send it in, and we could have a look at it, but I should utter this warning, that if a large mass of materials has to be carried 50 or 100 miles the cost is quite astronomical.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that if in many cases the top soil were replaced it would allow trees to be grown if not food?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Alkali Inspector, Trafford Park Area

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the additional alkali inspector for the Trafford Park area will be appointed and take up his duties.

Mr. Marples: An inspector has now taken up duty in this area.

Mr. Storey: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that this is an additional appointment, and not just the replacement of the existing inspector at Liverpool, and can he say whether the additional inspector will be based upon Manchester and not upon Liverpool?

Mr. Marples: I cannot answer the second part of the supplementary question without notice. It was not easy to get a replacement because this is highly specialised work. One particular applicant refused the appointment.

Mr. Storey: Will my hon. Friend look into the matter further to see if the additional inspector can be based upon Manchester, because that is important to the area that he should be?

Mr. Marples: He is certainly taking charge of that area. Where his office is in particular is another question. I will look into it and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the responsible official pay special attention to this area,

because there are a number of new industries in Trafford Park causing serious concern to the residents in the Eccles, Urmston and Flixton area?

Mr. Marples: Of course, that is the area for which he will be responsible.

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will consider the special circumstances that arise from mining subsidence in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and treat all applications made by the city as questions of urgency when they arise from mining subsidence;
(2) what recent action he has taken with county boroughs who suffer from the effects of mining subsidence:
(3) if he intends to arrange financial assistance to aid local authorities who are seriously affected by mining subsidence.

Mr. Marples: I cannot add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on 13th July.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Would the Minister agree that that is a very disappointing reply in view of the fact that he must be familiar with the terrible circumstances in these areas? Is he aware that the whole sewerage and drainage is collapsing and that unless urgent attention is given to it a very serious situation may arise? In view of that, will he see early attention is given to it?

Mr. Marples: This mining subsidence affects all sorts of properties as well as new houses. New houses are covered by a special subsidy which can be given for foundation purposes. In 1950 the previous Government passed the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act which dealt with new houses, small houses, only, and presumably they were not able to go into the larger question. This Government do not think they can alter that view.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we then promised the implementation of the Turner Report and that if it were implemented grave injustice could be avoided to certain areas where there is mining subsidence at very low cost to the Treasury?

Mr. Marples: Economic circumstances now are just as difficult as they were in 1950 while the loss due to subsidence has taken place over a number of years. The right bon. Gentleman will agree that the previous Government could not undertake the commitment in 1950, and I do not think he can expect this Government to undertake it now.

Mr. Speaker: This matter is to be debated on the Adjournment on Friday.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to set up a Local Government Boundary Commission to review and report upon local government boundaries, functions, status and financial resources.

Mr. Marples: I cannot add to the replies given on 28th April and 19th May last.

Mr. Sparks: That reply appears to give no hope whatever that the Minister will do anything at all to look into this problem of the re-organisation of local government administration. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility at any foreseeable date of his right hon. Friend's taking any initiative or action in this matter?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is aware that this is an urgent problem, but the Question on the Order Paper is, if he will take steps to set up a local government boundary commission. The hon. Gentleman in 1949 voted for the abolition of the Local Government Boundary Commission, and it is gratifying to notice his change of heart.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the first step to be taken here is a Government decision as to the functions of local government, before we can hope to make very much progress with the boundaries?

Mr. Marples: That is a very complicated problem, and I should not like to answer yes or no to that.

River Gipping (Pollution)

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to remedy

the bad condition of the River Gipping, between Stowmarket and Needham Market.

Mr. Marples: Action in this matter is primarily for the local authorities concerned, but my right hon. Friend is giving them all the encouragement he can. My right hon. Friend has just approved a sewage treatment scheme for Needham Market, and he will sympathetically consider the further improvement scheme envisaged for the Stowmarket sewage works when it reaches him. He understands that this is likely to be fairly soon.

Colonel Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that five years ago an official of his Department visited this site and said something should be done immediately, and that nothing has happened, and that many of my constituents nearby suffer in their health, and that agricultural production is down because stock cannot get proper water?

Mr. Marples: Five years ago I was not in this Department, but I must say that this problem is largely a technical one because Stowmarket Urban District Council spent a lot of money constructing a new sewerage works and took into them factory wastes, and it was necessary for them to have a certain amount of experience in dealing with this.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the necessary work to be completed?

Mr. Marples: Not without notice.

Flood Relief Funds (Devon and Somerset)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what control is exercised by Her Majesty's Government in the spending of money contributed by the State to the North Devon and West Somerset Flood Relief Fund.

Mr. Marples: The North Devon and West Somerset Flood Relief Fund is administered by the trustees of the fund as a charitable trust, and there is no Government control.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Devon and Somerset stag hounds have made a claim of£2,290 on this Fund for damage to fences, hunting tracks and so on, which I understand


has been paid; and in view of the fact that the Fund was contributed to widely by people all over the country to relieve personal distress and not to subsidise private hunting societies, will he look into this matter to see that at least the State's contribution is being properly distributed to the people whom the State intended should receive it?

Mr. Marples: I will look at that particular point of which I have not had notice. All I can say is that the High Court has decided that the purpose for which this Fund was created constituted a valid charitable trust, so that the powers and duties of the trustees are really defined by law; but I will go into the point which the hon. Member makes.

Brigadier Peto: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to those who are under any illusion that the fund is for the relief of distress and for compensating all who suffered material damage and that, with very few exceptions, the people of North Devon would be against any exception being made?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Brick Supplies, Birmingham

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that there is still a shortage of bricks in the city of Birmingham and that as a result housebuilding is being cut down by 10 houses per week; and what steps he is taking to speed up the delivery of bricks.

Mr. Marples: No complaint has been received from the Corporation, but one contractor has approached the Principal Regional Officer for assistance. As a result of action taken by the Ministry of Works there has been an improvement in brick deliveries for this contract.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that general foremen, builders' agents and builders' merchants have been interviewed, and that investigations have proved that there is a serious shortage of bricks, and anything from six months' to 12 months' delay in the delivery of bricks and cement? Municipal and private housing estates are suffering in the city of Birmingham. Has the right hon. Gentleman not been misinformed by his Birmingham office?

Mr. Marples: I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he goes into it, will find that there is a lengthening delivery date for houses which have not been started and fairly prompt delivery of bricks and cement for houses already under construction. That is one of the ways in which my right hon. Friend has steadied the housing programme, by not having an undue proportion of houses started, and why the rate of building is well over 300,000 houses a year, 50 per cent. over what was thought possible two years ago. If we started too many houses in proportion there would be a setback.

Mr. Shurmer: Can the hon. Gentleman say why large quantities of materials are being sent on to large atomic bomb sites instead of being used for schools, hospitals and houses which are badly needed? Why not allow the local authorities to buy bricks to carry out their housing programmes? We are 10 a week short already in Birmingham.

Mr. Marples: Local authorities can, and often do, buy bricks in bulk. The housing programme takes two-thirds of the available number.

Sir E. Boyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the real cause of this reduction is that there is no longer a Conservative majority on the City Council of Birmingham?

Contracts, Leicester

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now approve the contracts for 254 houses for the Leicester City Council, 236 of which were applied for in April; and if he is aware that these contracts expire unless confirmed by approval of the contracts by 31st July.

Mr. Marples: The amount of work still in hand on Corporation contracts already approved does not justify the addition of further commitments at present.

Mr. Bowden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to ensure continuity it is necessary to approve these contracts now, because brick orders have to be placed at least six months ahead? If that is done at this moment continuity will be ensured.

Mr. Marples: I cannot agree with that because the completions of traditional houses in Leicester numbered 494 in


1952, built of brick, and 192 in the first half of 1953. They have now 961 houses under construction, which is twice as many as they completed in 1952, and 127 approved but not started. I think it would be the best thing if Leicester were to complete some of these and then come back again.

Mr. Janner: Why were only 334 brick houses permitted since January in Leicester, irrespective of the brick shortage, which did not arise at anything like that time? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are 10,800 on the waiting list for these brick houses, which could be built if he were to let us get on with it?

Mr. Marples: People on the waiting list are interested only in completed houses and not in houses under construction. As Leicester has 961 houses under construction, twice as many as they completed in 1952. I think they should complete some of those first.

Oral Answers to Questions — CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS (RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister the present duties of the Minister for Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th May, 1952.

Mr. Jay: As the "Daily Telegraph" has now stated that the Overlords have had their co-ordinating functions taken away from them and transferred to the Chancellor, will the right hon. Gentleman say—I suppose he knows—whether it is true that the Government have thus returned to the system prevailing under the Labour Government, and, if so, can any such important change in the Government be first announced in the House of Commons and not to the "Daily Telegraph "?

Mr. Crookshank: I must say that I am not responsible for anything which appears in the daily Press, and I have answered the Question which was on the Order Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: Can nothing be done by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to relieve Lord Leathers of the boredom associated with this post?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL PRESS CONFERENCES

Mr. Peart: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the now restricted number of Press conferences held by Departmental Ministers, he will review the general position and encourage a return to the practice carried out by the previous administration.

Mr. Crookshank: I doubt whether there is any general wish to change the present practice whereby Ministers or officials meet newspaper representatives as occasion demands.

Mr. Peart: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Treasury have cut down on Press conferences, which were carried out by the previous Administration, explaining the general economic position, and is not he aware that very influential sections of the Press have publicly stated that the present practice is a bad one?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. There has been no general complaint about the present arrangement, and I dare say that the need for Press conferences, as in this case, diminishes when the Government are doing well.

Mr. H. Morrison: If the implication of the Lord Privy Seal's statement is that the economic situation is enormously better, may I ask him if he is aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Housing has just stated that the economic situation in 1953 is as bad as it was in 1950?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy with regard to the practical proposals for the abolition of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction, the drastic reduction of man-power and conventional weapons,


and the establishment of international armament control, laid before the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations a year ago.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposals put forward jointly or severally by the United Kingdom, the United States and France. There has been no change in the support which we expressed for these proposals when they were tabled. Her Majesty's Government continue to support the United Nations Majority Plan for the Control of Atomic Energy unless a better alternative is suggested. They hope that this plan will serve as a useful basis for further discussion in the Disarmament Commission.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Government still adhere to these proposals, will they now urge that the Disarmament Commission shall carry out its mandate of drawing them up in the form of a draft treaty, so that public opinion everywhere may see that they were not simply general phrases, but are capable of practical application and will bring great relief if Russia agrees to what we propose?

Mr. Butler: I think that we must first see whether these proposals get general acceptance and then we can consider the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, I would inform him that the speeches made by the United Kingdom delegation on this Commission are available in the Library.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter? Would it not be of great use to have a draft treaty drawn up, if necessary, by a majority of this Commission without the universal agreement of everybody?

Mr. Butler: The point will be to get the maximum agreement we can and then we can consider the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Government are so enthusiastic about disarmament, why are they going to drop another atomic bomb?

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREAN ARMISTICE (U.N. ASSEMBLY MEETING)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement about the summoning of the

United Nations Assembly to deal with the question of the truce in Korea and the establishment and terms of reference of a political conference.

Mr. Butler: It was announced yesterday that the General Assembly of the United Nations is to meet in New York on 17th August to consider the situation arising from the Korean Armistice.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure us that the Government will be represented by Ministers at this very important meeting, and will the Ministers urge that the Assembly shall discuss the question of the reconstruction fund for Korea?

Mr. Butler: The agenda and so on will have to be established, but the importance of the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind. He may rest assured that our representation will certainly be Ministerial and must be very carefully considered.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether the British delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly will do their best to ensure that the United Nations' delegation which will go to the political conference in Korea will work to a United Nations' common policy and not on national policies?

Mr. Butler: I realise the importance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The composition and terms of reference, and the agenda and so forth must be worked out at the General Assembly itself, but I will certainly draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point to the attention of our delegates to the Assembly.

Mr. Osborne: Will the Assembly deal with the economic consequences of the peace in Korea as well as the political consequences?

Mr. Butler: These are difficult to break apart.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure us that the leading member of the British delegation to the United Nations will be a member of this House and not of another place?

Mr. Butler: I cannot make any final statement on this matter at this moment. I have said that the representation will


be Ministerial, and it will naturally be our wish that the Minister of State, if possible, should attend, but I do not wish to make a final statement on this occasion.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the active part played by a sister Commonwealth country—India—would the Chancellor consider that country being a member of the conference to be called, following the Assembly meeting?

Mr. Butler: The importance of that is widely realised, but I should not like to make a statement on that today.

Mrs. Castle: According to "The Times" Washington correspondent today, the United States has promised President Rhee that they will walk out of the political conference if they are not satisfied with the attitude of the Communist delegates, and can the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are not a party to any such agreement?

Mr. Butler: We have had a certain amount of difficulty in keeping pace with the variety of statements on these matters in the last few days. All I know is that Her Majesty's Government are quite determined to see that this conference is a success and shall come to a logical and just conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether a reply has yet been received to the invitation sent to the Soviet Government to attend a Foreign Ministers' Conference to discuss Germany and Austria.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not clear from the recent "Pravda" article on this subject that the idea of a second-class conference with a rigid and limited agenda, attended by hordes of experts, is as disagreeable to the Russians as it is to the Prime Minister, and had not the Government better make up its mind, if it wants to have talks with the Russians which may produce some profitable result, that it will have to be more flexible in its approach and persuade the Americans to be more flexible also?

Mr. Butler: We have gone over the ground a good deal in the last day or two. The first thing to make clear is that Her Majesty's Government are absolutely united on the policy we are following under the Prime Minister; and the second point to be made clear, and I think the most important matter to bear in mind at present, is the need for absolute unity between the Allies who are concerned in this matter. That we have achieved, and that is a great achievement.

Sir H. Williams: Is there any evidence that Mr. Malenkov is prepared to leave his own country to attend a conference?

Mr. Rankin: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us when the Government managed to get the Prime Minister to support their policy?

SOLDIER'S DEATH, MOSTON HALL HOSPITAL

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Lieut.-Colonel LIPTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he will take, arising from the death of Private Donald Harrison at Moston Hall Military Hospital, to avoid the repetition of similar cases in future.

Mr. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will appoint an independent committee of inquiry consisting of non-military personnel to investigate the causes and matters affecting the death of the late Private Harrison;
(2) if his attention has been drawn to the evidence produced at a recent court-martial concerning the death of the late Private Harrison; and whether he will make a statement;
(3) if he will now make a further statement on the death of the late Private Harrison.

Mr. BELLENGER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received the typewritten copy of court-martial proceedings at the trial of Lieut.-Colonel Gleave; and whether he will now make a statement thereon.

Mr. M. STEWART: To ask the Secretary of State for War what action he


proposes to take against the person responsible for the wrong diagnosis and ill-treatment of the late Private Donald Harrison.

Mr. HAROLD DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he now has anything to add on the case of Private Harrison and the efficiency of the service to patients at Moston Hall Military Hospital.

At the end of Questions—

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 127 and 128.
Hon. Members will recall that, as soon as the allegations of ill-treatment of Private Harrison were brought to my notice, I ordered an immediate court of inquiry. On receiving the report of the court of inquiry, I had to decide what I should say to the House on the facts presented to me and what action I myself and the responsible authorities ought to take. On 16th June I gave a full and frank reply to the House about this case and I said that the medical specialist and the day sister concerned would be reported to the appropriate professional bodies. About Colonel Gleave I said:
… as far as I can ascertain, no thorough inquiry was instituted by the commanding officer although on 18th May he stated that a full inquiry had already been made by himself.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 44.]
The commanding officer was subsequently tried by court-martial on charges that he failed to investigate or report the allegations, and that he agreed a statement to the Press that the allegations had been fully inquired into when he knew that they had not. I still believe that the decision that Colonel Gleave should be tried by court-martial was correct and I would point out to the House that, if he had not been tried, he would have had no subsequent opportunity of vindicating his reputation which had been impugned.
It will be realised that the charges against Colonel Gleave were concerned solely with the action which he took after the alleged ill-treatment of Private Harrison; and I would stress that it was never at any time suggested that the commanding officer was himself personally responsible for that treatment. This fact I felt must be made quite clear in my statement

to the House because, had I not been specific about the reasons why Colonel Gleave was to be tried, and had I baldly stated that he was to be court-martialled, it might well have appeared by inference that he was alleged to be personally concerned in the treatment of Private Harrison.
Now that Colonel Gleave has been acquitted on the first charge and honourably acquitted on the second, the House will wish to know whether this affects either the evidence or the action taken regarding the treatment of Private Harrison while in hospital. I have now had time to examine the full court-martial proceedings, of which I have placed a copy in the Library, and, in the light of them, to review the court of inquiry's evidence where it concerns Private Harrison's treatment. After having done so, I am still of the opinion that the evidence relating to the medical specialist and the day sister should be placed before the appropriate professional bodies.
I have also reconsidered whether I should institute a further inquiry into all the circumstances of this case. I see no reason to change the view which I previously expressed to the House that this regrettable occurrence did not arise from any fault in the Army medical system itself, but was due to a failure within that system.

Mr. Bellenger: Had the right hon. Gentleman additional evidence to that presented at the court-martial which warranted his casting very serious aspersions on the honour and conduct of this commanding officer, who has now been honourably acquitted by a court-martial? Does he think that the statements which he made in the House before the trial were worthy of his position as head of the Army Council, under which all officers in the Service come for disciplinary purposes?

Mr. Head: My statement to the House and my remarks were based on the court of inquiry and the G.O.C.-in-C.'s comments on the court of inquiry. Had I made no specific references to why Colonel Gleave was being tried, I do not think that the public or the House could have come to any conclusion other than that it was due to his own personal conduct in the treatment of Private Harrison. I attempted to make that clear.


I would also point out that the holding of a court-martial is not necessarily a sign of misconduct by an officer; it provides an opportunity for an officer to clear his own conduct.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are aspects of the case which are troubling the public mind a great deal more than the one which he has mentioned? Will he answer these questions? Who was responsible for the most improper disclosure of a medical report on Private Rosser in the course of the court-martial proceedings, and what disciplinary action is he taking against whoever was responsible?
Secondly, is he aware that the late Private Harrison was treated as an hysterical patient despite the fact that the diagnosis that he was an hysterical patient was only provisional, and that treating him in that way involved ill-treatment, and since it is established that Colonel Gleave was not responsible for the treatment, who was, and what action is to be taken?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no unjust treatment of two witnesses at the court-martial? Will he also explain why one of them, who is an expectant mother, is still in the Service?

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. I do not want to dodge anything in the House, nor do I wish to detain it too long. As regards the admissibility of certain documents, I have given the hon. Gentleman a long and full Written reply to his Question and I think that, when he has read it, he will find that it makes it abundantly clear how this arose.
As regards the diagnosis of Private Harrison, as I have already told the House, there was a fault, in my opinion on the evidence presented to me, arising out of the fact that the second thorough and statutory examination after admission was not made. That evidence has been reported to the appropriate professional bodies.
As to the cross-questioning of witnesses for the prosecution, the House will appreciate that in a court-martial it would be improper for the prosecution in any way to institute a state of affairs giving special protection for witnesses for the prosecution. The main case for the defence was

concerned with the discrediting of the witnesses against Colonel Gleave. I do not think it was in my power to protect either Nurse Rosser or Private Nicholson in their position as witnesses.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the most serious consideration which arises is not so much the errors of an officer, medical or otherwise, in the hospital but evidence of a certain lack of common humanity in the application of Army regulations, against which, in themselves, there is nothing, evidence that in military hospitals the situation is not wholly satisfactory, as we have all felt? What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take on the wider issue of a greater degree of common humanity in these hospitals?

Mr. Head: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there are in the wider aspects many problems with regard to the future of the Army medical service. I can assure him that no one is better aware of that than I and the Government are, and the matter is being considered. With reference to the application of the system, the House will appreciate that, once a diagnosis has been made and those who are acting on it are doing their duty, there is often a tendency to stick to the treatment which has been prescribed despite the fact that circumstances may suggest that it was false. It was due to the fact that this was not spotted earlier that the regrettable occurrence took place.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is it not wrong to try to pillory a medical specialist for making what he has admitted was an imperfect diagnosis? Is it not a fact that nearly every doctor has at some time or other made a wrong diagnosis?

Mr. Head: I should be the very first to agree about that, and it would be quite wrong for me to suggest that someone should be seriously taken to account for that type of error. What I am saying about the medical specialist in this case is that there is an examination on admission and it is statutory that another thorough examination should be made after admission, and it is because that thorough examination was never made that I have reported the officer.

Mr. H. Morrison: Arising from this experience, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be a good


rule that when a court-martial is to be held the Secretary of State should not express a judgment on a person or on matters which are likely to be the subject of inquiry at the court-martial?

Mr. Head: My statement included the fact that Colonel Gleave would be court-martialled. I specified these charges because I thought that, if I had not specified them, it would have been assumed that he was being tried for his own personal conduct. I would add to what the right hon. Gentleman said that I said in my statement:
… as far as I can ascertain…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 44.]
That refers to the fact that the decision to have a court-martial was based on the court of inquiry, and I think those words
… as far as I can ascertain.…
did remove any suspicion that I was prejudging the case.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all that this boils down to is the reporting of two medical people to the British Medical Association, it will not remove the very widespread public disquiet that exists over this case? Will he say what he is doing to avoid a repetition of similar cases in future in addition to reporting these two people to a medical committee, and to prevent any suspicion of victimisation will he order the release forthwith from the Army of the two witnesses concerned?

Mr. Head: I have reminded all hospitals that the existing procedure should be strictly adhered to in all cases of admissions. As far as the two individuals are concerned, they are now back in the Army as normal individuals, and I should not like to say anything further about them at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is great concern about this matter. Will he set up an independent, non-military committee of inquiry so that the public can be assured that there is no one in the War Office or anywhere else trying to cover up any wrongdoing that there may have been in connection with this case?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman reads my statement, which is based on

the court of inquiry, he will not accuse anyone of trying to cover up anything. Furthermore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that there have been mistakes in this case has been reported to the professional bodies, and I suggest that we await their comments on the facts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Reverting to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), will the Secretary of State make it clear that there is no question of reporting anyone to the British Medical Association or any body of that type. The body to which their conduct is being reported is not a medical body but a statutory body consisting of the highest authority in the land, both lay and medical.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I put a Private Notice Question about this matter it was not with the intention of victimising the commanding officer or anyone else, but merely to try to see that our own National Service boys were guaranteed the maximum efficiency in the medical service if they were in hospital? Is he further aware that my figures show that the number of patients in the hospital has now increased from 150 to 450 and the staffing, apparently, is still the same as when there were only 150 patients there? If that is correct will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to rectify the position.

Mr. Head: No, Sir, that is not correct. The medical officers and the subordinate nursing staff, consisting of R.A.M.C. and Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps other ranks, are at full strength. There is a deficiency of 18 nursing officers of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, which reflects the world-wide shortage. I am trying to increase recruits for that service, but at the moment I cannot increase it further.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot carry this further now.

Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last


question I put to him? May we have an assurance that the two witnesses will be properly treated in the future?

Mr. Head: I have only one desire and that is to see that these particular witnesses are perfectly fairly treated.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the necessity for further exploring this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it again at an early opportunity.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS, HOUSE OF LORDS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. I wish to ask for your clarification, Mr. Speaker, of a Ruling which you gave yesterday, of which I have already given you notice. You may recollect that the matter arose out of a statement made by the Marquess of Salisbury in the House of Lords. We have had some difficulty during the period he has been acting Foreign Secretary in getting answers in this House of Commons. The Ruling which you gave yesterday was:
… where the conduct of a Minister is particularly attacked and that Minister happens to be in another place there seems to me to be no impropriety whatsoever in him giving an explanation in his own House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 892.]
It is not the conduct of an individual person or a Minister which has been attacked up to now, and what I should like clarification on is what we should do about the policies of Ministers in another place, because later yesterday afternoon, following a statement on Korea, the Minister of State, replying to a question which I put to him, in which I asked him to have a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly before the political conference, said:
That is hardly a matter for me. There is to be a debate on foreign affairs in another place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 900.]
Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
In any case, my noble Friend will be able to defend himself and his policy with accuracy in another place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 464.]
In Erskine May, in page 434 of the edition Which I have, it says:
The rule that allusions to debates in the other House are out of order prevents fruitless arguments between members of two distinct

bodies who are unable to reply to each other… but it is mainly founded upon the understanding that the debates of the other House are not known, and that the House can take no notice of them.
It has grown up by custom, and inevitably as the result of the need, that we can refer to Ministerial statements made in another place whenever they take place. But I submit that this is going a lot wider than that, and that it raises the very serious problem of how we are to get Ministerial responsibility in this House for what is one of the most vital public issues of the day; how we can conduct those discussions without attacking things said in another place; or widening the discussion far beyond the ruling of Erskine May because, after all, we in this House are elected and the people in another place are not.
The point that I am seeking to make is that the whole reason for Erskine May's ruling that there should be no conflict between the two Houses will be nullified if we start discussing what takes place in another place and debating it in this House. Conversely, the same thing will happen the other way. I should like a clarification of that ruling, and some idea from you, Mr. Speaker, how the interests of the House of Commons can be safeguarded.

Mr. Speaker: This is not really a point of order at all. There have been, in a number of Governments of which I have cognisance, Ministers in both Houses, and it is for the Government and not for me to say whether a Ministerial or other statement will be made in the other place or here. As long as there are Ministers in the other place the sort of circumstance that seems to trouble the hon. Member will arise, but that is a matter for the Government and not for me.

Mr. Donnelly: It is not a question of whether there is a Minister in another place; it is whether there is somebody accountable in this place. This is a much more valid point. All I am seeking from you, Mr. Speaker, now, is a Ruling as to how we can safeguard the interests of this House by somebody who is answerable to this House, which is elected by the people of this country?

Mr. Speaker: We had a foreign affairs debate the other day and Ministers answered on foreign affairs. I do not see what is the complaint of the hon. Member.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tradition between the two Houses that we seek not to quarrel with each other, at any rate in public, and that is why the rule in Erskine May referred to by my hon. Friend exists, although there is an exception in Erskine May. May I put it to you that, as my hon. Friend has said, it was the case twice yesterday that when information was sought in the House of Commons we were fobbed off with a statement that a speech would be made in another place. Is that not calculated to embitter the relationship between the two places? I respectfully agree with you that it is largely a matter for the Government and I hope, if and when they appoint another Foreign Secretary, they will draw him from this place and not from another place as they have the acting Foreign Secretary. May I submit to you, Sir, that it is not conducive to good relations between the two Houses, when perfectly legitimate questions are put across the Floor here, for the Government to say, "We are not going to tell the House of Commons. Somebody else will tell the House in another place"?

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman says, that is, of course, entirely a matter for the Government and for hon. Members to make their own opinions felt and for some arrangement to be reached. It is not a matter on which I can do anything.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is speaking further to that point of order, I have ruled that it is not a point of order, so that if he wishes to speak further to that he has no point of order.

Mr. Benn: It is further in the event of time, Sir. What I want to draw your attention to, Sir, is that in another place

this afternoon the question of your Ruling yesterday was raised and Lord Woolton promised to make a statement in another place tomorrow on your Ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I would mention the noble Lord by his office if I could remember it. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this is inevitably the result which will follow if we cannot, as back bench Members of this House, seek your protection against a Government which is constantly trying to fob us off by referring this House to statements made in another place. This may not be further to the last point of order, but may I respectfully say to you that it would be very undesirable if, as a result of your Ruling yesterday, there was a constant debate carried on day after day between the two Houses as to whether or not Ministers of the party opposite were to make their statements in this House or in the other place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking me to dictate to the Government whether Ministers shall be in this House or in another place. I cannot do that. As for my Ruling, I shall await what is said in another place without undue apprehension.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 23rd July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [23rd July]

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1953–54; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Resolutions reported,
1. That a sum, not exceeding£27,850,321, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Traffic Congestion and Road Accidents for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1953–54



£


Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport
1,718,000


Class IX, Vote 2, Roads, etc.
22,333,500


Class IX, Vote 8, Department of Scientific and industrial Research
3,798,821


Total
£27,850,321

2. That a sum, not exceeding£69,366,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Food Hygiene for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES,1953–54



£


Class VIII, Vote 9, Ministry of Food
29,628,668


Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health (including a Supplementary sum of£302,314)
2,856,314


Class V, Vote 15, Department of Health for Scotland
1,581,510


Class VIII, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of£15,999,990)
32,913,241


Class VIII, Vote 11, Department of Agriculture for Scotland
2,386,667


Total
£69,366,400

3. That a sum, not exceeding£20,781,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Added Days Procedure for Unemployment Benefit for the year ending on 31st March. 1954, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54



£


Class V, Vote 10, National Insurance and Family Allowances (Revised Sum)
118,037,000


Class X, Vote 5, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
4,724,000


Class V, Vote 11, National Assistance Board
85,020,000


Total
£207,781,000

4. That a sum, not exceeding£39,697,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Position of Conscientious Objectors for the year ending on 31st March, 1954, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1953–54, Ministry of Defence Estimate, 1953–54, Navy Estimates, 1953–54, Army Estimates, 1953–54, and Air Estimates, 1953–54


Class V, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service
12,775,000


Ministry of Defence
13,012,000


Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office
6,910,000


Army Estimates Vote 3, War Office
3,020,000


Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry
3,980,000


Total
£39,697,000

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Class I

5. That a sum, not exceeding£10,257,785, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

Class II

6. That a sum not exceeding£57,923,325, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

Class III

7. That a sum, not exceeding£60,302,388, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

Class IV

8. That a sum, not exceeding£202,857,288, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will


come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

Class V

9. That a sum, not exceeding£390,195,813, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

Class VI

10. That a sum, not exceeding£190,193,965, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

Class VII

11. That a sum, not exceeding£43,317,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

Class VIII

12. That a sum, not exceeding£45,400,267, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

Class IX

13. That a sum, not exceeding£17,241,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

Class X

14. That a sum, not exceeding£56,264,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1953–54

15. That a sum, not exceeding£177,880,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

16. That a sum, not exceeding£176,299,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

17. That a sum, not exceeding£293,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54

18. That a sum, not exceeding£134,700,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

[For details of Resolutions, See OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1953, Cols. 700–707.]

First Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND ROAD ACCIDENTS

3.54 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Opposition have set aside this day to give the Government an opportunity of stating their policy in relation to a number of matters concerning roads. If the House approaches the debate with a slight feeling of nausea I can well understand it, because we have discussed transport ad nauseum for the last 12 months, but it has been a limited aspect and, from the point of view of the Opposition, a not very profitable Measure that we have been discussing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nor very profitable for the nation, if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to take up that point.
We have asked for this debate now because we want to focus attention on a matter which is more particularly the responsibility of the Government and of the Minister of Transport, namely, road policy generally. I want to submit my observations to the House in three parts. First, I should like to ask some questions and to put some views before the House, with their permission, on the general question of the road policy of the Government. Secondly, I should like to submit to the House certain observations in relation to traffic congestion, particularly in London——

Mr. Ellis Smith: And Manchester.

Mr. Callaghan: Thirdly, I want to deal with the broad question of our approach to road accidents and what action can be taken by this House, and particularly by the Minister and the Government, to lessen the dreadful toll of human life that is taking place at present.
The present policy in relation to road construction is not to permit any. The Minister inherited that policy and he has not changed it. The Government have now been in office for two years and they have carried on a policy from their predecessors which was never particularly adequate and gets less adequate and even less defensible as time goes on. Certainly, when we were in office, the economic pundits, whether of the Right or Left, used to tell us that we ought not to spend any money on roads and both the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite and also the economic friends who advise us, in their public utterances and private advice are all saying, "Do not spend any money on the roads."
As far as the late Government are concerned, there was great competition for the capital resources of the nation that were available. The competition came from many directions—for the rebuilding of our houses and factories and schools and, on the social side, in relation to the needs of transport itself, such as rolling stock, steel mills and all the investment in agriculture that took place immediately after the war as a result of the backlog that had accumulated. It was easy, therefore, for the Government to accept the advice of both Right and Left at the time that they should not spend money on the roads.
As I understand the attitude of the Government now, it is that the call on our capital investment is not as great as it was. Indeed, it would be surprising if there were such pressure or such urgency, for the war has been over for eight years and a great part of the capital investment whose backlog had accumulated has been overtaken. While there is still considerable pressure on our capital resources, there is no doubt that there is not quite the same pressure as there was during the first year and for three, four and five years after the war.
Do the Government now propose to amend the road policy that has been con-

sistently followed since the end of the war, in order to give roads and new road development a rather higher priority than it has had up to the present time? The economists have had us in their grip up to the present and it is time that this grip was slackened and more money was spent on the roads. We have got to the point where the cost of new roads would be less than the loss we are incurring in efficiency, and so on, by not building them. Therefore, I say to the Minister that we would encourage him to get more money from the Treasury if possible, and a greater share of capital resources than he has had hitherto, so that the miserable figure of£3 million, which was all that was included in this year's Estimates for new construction, should be increased. There is a good economic case to be sustained on those grounds.
There are a number of projects to which the Minister could devote resources if he had them available. Does he not think that the time has come for him to put them in order and to tell us what is in the Government's mind for restarting a measure of road construction? I hope that hon. Members will not feel that I am peddling a purely constituency, parochial or national interest if I place at the top of this scale the road from Birmingham to Bristol and South Wales. That road is heavily trafficked and is a bad road in the sense that as a trunk road it has a 30 miles an hour speed limit for 25 per cent. of its length and comprises throughout almost the whole of its length room for only two vehicles moving in either direction. I believe that that road has a good economic justification for improvement.
There could be, and should be, included as an early priority the Severn Bridge, which would save some 40 to 50 miles—46 miles, I think, is the exact figure—for traffic going from South Wales around to Bristol. A considerable volume of traffic does that journey every day.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It also includes Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester traffic.

Mr. Callaghan: I was coming almost immediately to Lancashire and Cheshire—indeed, that would have been my second priority. My hon. Friend has merely anticipated me by half a sentence.

Mr. Jack Jones: My hon. Friend should have put the North first. That is where the work is done.

Mr. Callaghan: I am putting these views to the Minister and I hope he will give us his own. I should have thought that in the order of priority the Lancashire-Cheshire road probably comes second in any reconstruction that ought to take place. The time has come when the economic loss that we are sustaining is greater than the cost of building these new roads, or, at any rate, of starting them.
I see the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) in his place. He, of course, was chairman of a sub-committee that did a diligent job of work on roads when they presented their Report recently to the House. Had I been one of the officials in the Ministry of Transport, I should have been extremely apprehensive in view of the hon. Member's approach. The staff in the Ministry of Transport have been suffering from malnutrition for years, and the hon. Member for Farnham comes along and tells them, "Well, I am not at all sure that you have not been getting a bit too much, and perhaps we ought to cut it down and half-starve you instead of merely allowing you to suffer from malnutrition."
The hon. Gentleman will see that my approach is rather different from his. I understand that the object of a Select Committee on Estimates is to see how economies can be secured, but this only goes to demonstrate how inadequate is an approach of that sort in relation to the investigation of certain topics.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he is well aware, the Estimates Committee cannot deal with increased expenditure or new construction? We were confined entirely to the amount spent on maintenance. It is only fair that that should be stated.

Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate that these Committees are not permitted to recommend increases in expenditure, but, equally, I think they are not required to make recommendations which take only a partial view of the situation. I do not wish to criticise unduly the work that was done, because some first-class material was got out of the Report, but I think that the sub-committee perhaps, by their

terms of reference, were restricted to looking at only a very selected sector of the problem.

Mr. Nicholson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman agrees. This is what I mean. They reached that conclusion, on page XXI, that they had
received no convincing evidence of … deterioration of the roads, consequent upon the restriction of expenditure upon maintenance, as would constitute an appreciable danger to road users or a serious threat to the preservation of the value of the roads.…
That is a fair conclusion if the assumption to start with is that the roads are fit for the traffic.
A great deal of the discussion has gone on about whether our roads are going back or are being maintained in a state that is fit and proper, neglects something that has been taking place every year since the end of the war: namely, the growth in motor traffic. It may well be that these roads were adequate for the traffic of 1928, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been such an increase between 1928 and 1953 that these roads are now carrying a number of vehicles which has grown from 2 million to 4·7 million. The question, therefore—it was outside the hon. Gentleman's purview—is whether, even assuming that the roads are not going back and are not deteriorating, the road system as such is adequate for a growth in the number of vehicles of over 100 per cent.
The Minister will realise how much of his case I am making for him and how I am, I hope, strengthening his hand for a later occasion. But these are considerations which we must all have in mind, and I am trying to expose the case in as fair and objective a way as possible so that we can see what the position is.
I should like to put to the Minister another point on which he can take a decision and get work done, if he has not already done so, even without spending a lot of money. That is, in relation to the Road Research Laboratory.

Mr. Nicholson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: Dr. Glanville and his staff are doing a first-class job of work down there and are doing it on very little money. I am not in favour of throwing money away on research for the sake of it, but I think that the memorandum that


was put in to the Select Committee on Estimates by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which the hon. Member for Farnham and his colleagues will remember, showed that for the expenditure of a little more money a great deal could be got from the Road Research Laboratory in terms of dividends. I refer to the memorandum that is included on pages 112 to 118 of the Report, and particularly to the Department's recommendation No. 4 on page 117, in which they suggest that the Road Research Laboratory should get some money in order to embark on full-scale experiments on particular roads.
The work that the Laboratory has done on soil stabilisation, in building and constructing new roads, merits the highest praise from the House. I think that about£250,000 is spent on research every year out of the total road bill of about£75 million. The Report shows clearly that for the addition of another£150,000 investment and 100 staff, they could really be doing a job of research that could mean substantial economies, if the results came out right, in relation to the sum of£75 million that we are spending; and in relation to£75 million,£250,000 on research is not an incredible amount.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Member is being somewhat critical, but perhaps he would do justice to the sub-committee. We asked for that extra memorandum particularly with that end in view, and I hope he will give the Select Committee a word of praise on that.

Mr. Callaghan: I thought I had already said that the Select Committee had done a good job overall. It was the terms of reference which prevented them from making more than a partial review of the whole subject. I certainly re-emphasise that, because I should not wish to attack the work that was done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. It was a first-class job and it exposed the subject very well indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard any comments that I make as indicating a desire to help and not simply a desire to criticise destructively.
I suggest, therefore, to the Minister that here is a decision, which, perhaps, lies in his hands, which he could take, and which it is important he should take. If, as I think, he feels after his experience in the

Ministry of Transport that he is always going to be cut down by the Treasury, it is of vital moment that we should get as much as we can out of the money we get; and money spent on research will, of course, achieve that.
I myself have formed the conclusion that the highway authorities are doing the best they can with the money that is available on the maintenance of roads. They have been quick to take advantage of the work of the Road Research Laboratory, and by lengthening the life of the roads considerably since the end of the war, through the system of carpeting roads that is now used, they have undoubtedly been quick off the mark and have secured the maximum advantage. I believe that a little more money spent on research, as is the view of the Select Committee, in this case could yield us even bigger dividends in that direction.
So much for road policy; I sum up by saying that I hope the Minister will spend more on research as he will have a limited amount to spend on roads at any time. Secondly, the time has been reached when we ought to be making a start on some new projects in relation to our road system as a whole, where there has been nothing done since the nineteen thirties. Thirdly, he should prepare and give to the House a list of priorities and schemes which he would like to see started, and do his best to start them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member is scarcely being fair to the House and to the country unless he commits his party to a figure. He has been bandying about great schemes—the Birmingham to Bristol road, the Lancashire-Cheshire road, and so on—and is giving the idea that a great deal of money should be spent. Are we to have no figure for it at all? Otherwise, we shall have to consider that the hon. Members' economic "pundits" are still in control of him.

Mr. Callaghan: The figures for all these things are well known. An estimate has been prepared for the Birmingham to Bristol road, as I am sure the Minister knows, and for the Severn Bridge and a figure has been quoted for the cost of the Lancashire-Cheshire road. All I am asking is that the Minister should give a picture of what is in his mind in relation to them. So far as the attitude of my


party is concerned, if the noble Lord wishes, I will send him a copy of a new and powerfully written document called "Challenge to Britain," where he will see set out the attitude of the Labour Party to road development. I was not trying to be unfair to anyone, but I thought I was exposing the position in as open a way as possible.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Member not going to tell us how much extra he thinks should be spent this year?

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that in summarising I may deal with that. If I forget, perhaps the noble Lord will remind me when I come to the end of my speech.
I come to the problem of traffic congestion, which must trouble the Minister as much as every one of the eight million who live in London and travel there, as well as those who live in other cities. Here, again, is a problem which ought to be exposed. I do not use the word in any denigratory sense, in case the noble Lord jumps to his feet again. It is a problem we ought to consider and on which we ought to get the view of the House. Most of our great cities today are suffering from some form of traffic congestion. I shall not talk of the problems of Cardiff here, but in my city we have a very difficult problem and every hon. Member could talk about his own local problems.
Here, I think, we have responsibility for discussing the problem of London, which, after all, is a national one, not only because so many people live within its confines, but also because the road system of the country is based on the hub of London with radial spokes running north, west and south. The problem of London is undoubtedly one which will give the Minister and succeeding Ministers bigger headaches than almost any other problem. They are suffering in London from the fact that there has been no major building of roads in this city since Kingsway and the Aldwych were finished 40 years ago. That is not true, of course, of the outskirts, but in inner London nothing has been done. By inner London I mean the area north of the Thames, stretching from Vauxhall Bridge, Chelsea, to the Tower, where there has been no major development for 40 years.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is the same with Lancashire.

Mr. Callaghan: I know, but I prefaced my remarks by saying that I think this is true of many large cities. I merely deal with the national capital of England because it is the focus of the traffic system, the hub of the traffic system, of the whole country. I shall deal with Cardiff when we have a Parliament for Wales.
The problem in London is, I think, summarised by the figures which were secured by the Road Research Laboratory regarding the Strand in 1949. They found that 2,100 vehicles per hour were moving up and down the Strand. I am told that since then the density of traffic in inner London has increased by about 14 per cent. and there must be about 2,500 vehicles an hour moving along the Strand at present.
The same is true of many other streets. All of us who were present in London during the Coronation and those who have to move about in London know that London is strangling itself. The knot is getting increasingly tighter year by year. The question is, how are we to untie it? How are the Government proposing to set about it? What chance has the Minister of securing funds to get this job done? The problem will get more and more difficult unless he can tackle it fairly soon.
The Minister has an excellent Report from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on traffic congestion, which I know he has been studying. There is no need for us to set out the problem in any great detail. Figures have been produced to show that in the rush hours in the capital of this great country traffic is moving at five or six miles an hour, on the average. Mr. Valentine, of the London Transport Executive, produced that remarkable statistic which showed that if only he could get one more mile an hour out of the London omnibus he would be able to save about£2 million a year. That would not be in petrol, but because more work could be got out of the bus and fewer buses would be needed. As he readily admits, it is a crude statistic, but it is an indication of the magnitude of the saving which could be made with a proper road system.
The London Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee suggest that there are four main arteries in London which ought to be released. It is to this matter that I should like to direct the attention of the Minister and to see what he has in mind about it. First, they suggest that there should be a widening of The Strand between George Court and Charing Cross Station, immediately west of Savoy Street. I walked up the Strand this morning to see what it looked like and I counted 19 buses between Charing Cross Station and the Strand Hotel, all stationary pointing East. Traffic, once it gets around the Aldwych into the funnel of the Strand gets into a narrower and narrower road until it finally debouches into Trafalgar Square.
The Committee suggest that this is the first artery that ought to be unknotted and I think they are right. They suggest that Euston Road should be the second of the East—West arteries, the Strand being the first, and that the North and South arteries should be Park Lane and Tottenham Court Road. This job, I hasten to tell the noble Lord, would cost£9 million to carry out along the lines proposed by the Committee.
The question is: is it worth it? In my view, which I put to the Minister, the time is being reached when we just cannot afford not to do it and a start will have to be made. I am very interested in the proposal of the Report, because we must all have in mind the problem which would be involved in pulling down those vast buildings. Can it be done by what they call arcading—making arcades by gutting the ground floors of the buildings and propping the rest of the building by means of columns?
That would give the incidental advantage to pedestrians of being able to walk under the shelter of some of the buildings and the road could be extended. The pavements in the Strand are about 10 feet wide. We would get two more lines of traffic; and you would not have to demolish those buildings—not that many of them are of great architectural interest, so far as I can see. The relatively minor operation of taking up the ground floor could be carried out. I know that the Minister has been going into this problem and I should like to hear his reaction to that suggestion.
Another problem which must be dealt with is that of car parks. It is estimated that there are 16,000 vehicles on the streets of inner London every day, because they have no home to go to. They suggest there should be an immediate expenditure of£1½ million on constructing underground garages in Grosvenor Square, Berkeley Square, Cavendish Square and St. James's Square. I know the objections to this proposal. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government were quick to express them in relation to the amenities of these squares. I hope that every hon. Member will read the report of the working party on car parks which contains diagrams and pictures drawn by skilful architects depicting what St. James's Square would look like were it replanned in the way they suggest.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have read the report from cover to cover and in my view not one penny should be spent on it before the problems in Lancashire are dealt with. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are twice as many people living per square mile in Lancashire as in any other part of the country; that the problems in that area are terrible and that they should be given the maximum priority?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech and put his own case. This is one of the reasons why I suggest the Minister ought to give us an indication of the priorities he wishes to draw up.
I am here exposing a case which, unlike the case of Lancashire, has been fully investigated, where practical remedies have been devised which should be drawn to public attention, whatever may be the position in other parts of the country. We have all got our share of the problems in all parts of the country, but the fact remains that this is one of the biggest problems in London and it has to be solved, because slowly but surely traffic in the capital is coming to a full stop. If something is not done within the next decade I would not care to say what will be the average speed of vehicles through the centre of London.
Accidents have increased considerably this year. This must be disappointing to the Minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary, whose absence we all regret. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is


unwell and I am sorry to hear it because I know that he has done a great deal in this matter of road safety. But it is the case, alas, that the total of accidents for May was the highest for this month since 1937, and I believe that for the year as a whole the accident figures are 10 per cent. up on last year.
We must take drastic action if we are to deal with this matter. We have tried propaganda for years. In our various ways we have all done our best, by means of propaganda and education, to reduce the problem of road accidents, and so far we have not succeeded. Indeed, the only improvement indicated in the nature of road accidents would seem to be that now-a-days motorists are killing each other more than pedestrians——

Mr. William Keenan: It is time they did.

Mr. Callaghan: That may perhaps be regarded as a slight improvement, if you are a pedestrian. Although I fully accept the view that you cannot attach blame to any one particular section of road users the fact must always remain that it is the motorist who has control of a lethal weapon and, therefore, the greater responsibility must at all times attach to him.
I am sorry to see, from some researches which have been made, that some new cars are, in some respects, not as good as old cars. In regard to rear vision, for example, which is important in the matter of overtaking, and so on, the Road Research Laboratory did some research on some types of new cars. They found that the rear vision was worse on the newer models than on the older models. Although that is something which the Minister cannot directly influence, I am sure he can do something to bring to the notice of car manufacturers the vital importance of having clear vision all the way round. It is not just good enough to have a nice-looking job; it must be efficient.
I am sure that the major problem is that of the roadworthiness of vehicles. I seem to have attracted a lot of correspondence since notice of this debate was given. A number of people have written and have come to see me on the question of road accidents. Among the many letters I have received is this one, which

I opened just as I was coming into the Chamber this afternoon. It is written by a driver of 25 years' experience as a heavy goods driver. In his view un-roadworthy vehicles are the biggest menace for people using them. He says:
I would like you to put to the Minister of Transport why the road transport operators pay their drivers at piecework rates or bonus per load or so much per mile, some not taking their boots off from one week's end to the other.
As I am speaking in a not very acrimonious atmosphere I shall not give names, but he goes on to say that the people by whom he has been employed for the last three years—I will give the House two guesses as to who they are—set standards of roadworthiness and road safety which he has never known before.
I was interested to read in "The Times" this morning that a check on defective vehicles recently took place at Luton, where 20 summonses were issued against the owners and drivers of vehicles found to be in an unworthy condition. The report says:
Superintendent H. J. Woods said that more than 100 vehicles were examined on two days and over 70 per cent. were found to be defective.… Most of the cases arose from defects in braking or steering systems. Immediate prohibition orders were issued against vehicles. Several haulage contractors were among the defendants…

Mr. Keenan: Were any British Road Service vehicles involved?

Mr. Callaghan: I made that inquiry and I found that there was not a single British Road Service vehicle among them, which is what you would expect. They ought to set a high standard and I am delighted that they have done so. This is one of the reasons why the men feel a genuine anger about the Measure the Government are now putting through. I am glad that the Minister seems to be restarting this practice of on-the-spot inspections. I hope he will develop it. There is no doubt that the spot check is one certain way of making sure people do not allow their vehicles to go on the road in an un-roadworthy condition.
The Road Research Laboratory has done an excellent job of research into the braking performances of motor vehicles and brake testing. I spoke recently to the Road Research Laboratory director and he said that, in his view,


road braking, brake capacity, was one of the most important factors to watch. I should like to hear what the Minister has in mind about that aspect of the problem.
All of us should try to formulate public opinion so that magistrates are far more ready to take away driving licences than they are at present in cases where people are found guilty of behaviour which they should not indulge in on the roads. I recently came across what strikes me as an incredible case, if it is true. It was reported in the "Leicester Mercury" of 30th April, that a lorry driver, who had knocked down and injured an auto-cyclist, and had driven on and failed to report the accident, was fined a total of£21 and his licence suspended for a month. This man had 30 previous convictions. Needless to say, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents had awarded him a medal for safe driving. I only hope that he received it before he got all the convictions.
This is staggering. I cannot believe that the House wants a man with 30 convictions for road offences to be free to parade up and down the roads taking toll of life and limb among his fellow citizens. I believe that the whole House feels that magistrates should be as severe as possible wherever cases are proved of drivers using their vehicles dangerously. The possession of a licence is a privilege, and magistrates should not hesitate to deprive drivers of licences where they are likely to be a danger to life and limb.
The presence of police on the roads is one of the greatest factors for safety. The Road Research Laboratory made an investigation not long ago. They stationed a couple of policemen beside two zebra crossings. The policemen did nothing. They did not direct traffic; they did not take any notes; they did not look anywhere in particular. The effect on public behaviour was quite remarkable. More people used pedestrian crossings than before. More motorists pulled up than hitherto. Generally speaking, the mere presence of the policemen was a remarkable factor in stimulating road courtesy. The presence of more policemen on the roads, more mobile patrols, would encourage a higher standard of road courtesy.
There are many other considerations but I shall not detain the House except to say that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked about the cost of all this. I would say to him that the time has come when we must be prepared to spend more money on these projects. I cannot determine exactly what the Minister can get because it is not my job and I have not got all the figures. In any case, the Minister has to strike a bargain in the last resort. I think that I do my job on behalf of the Opposition, and, I hope, on behalf of the House, if I expose these problems and say to the Minister, "Here is the task and we should like to know from you what order of importance you give to it and what order of priority it should have."
The British Transport Commission are to spend£17 million on automatic train control for British Railways. Had that been in operation ever since 1912 it would have saved 400 lives. The standard of safety on British Railways is incredibly high. Because we have a disaster in which many people are injured at one time, there is a great rush of public opinion. We feel that British Railways must, therefore, spend£17 million on automatic train control throughout the whole system. That control would have saved 400 lives in 40 years.
We are losing 5,000 lives a year on the roads in driblets of ones and twos. When we come to balance where the capital expenditure should go I suggest we have reached a position where the case for additional capital expenditure on roads is overwhelming. We should certainly support the Minister in anything he could get out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would go part of the way to ameliorate, or solve even partially, some of the problems I have attempted to outline today.

4.34 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The whole House will be grateful to the Opposition for having asked for a whole day's debate on these most pressing subjects. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for the temperate and helpful way in which he made his observations. It makes me not exactly nostalgic for the old days, but I


am very grateful to him for helping to focus this issue in a businesslike way and to command, at the same time, the support and understanding of the House and, later, of the country.
I shall do my best to deal with all the questions he asked. If, at the end of my observations, I have left anything unsaid—and this applies, of course, to any subsequent speaker—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will deal with it when he winds up the debate. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who has shown a great zeal in the crusade for better manners on the road and for an improvement in the accident figures. I am sorry that ill-health has prevented him being here today, but I hope that during the summer Recess he will be able to continue the very useful work, on which we have all relied a great deal in the past 18 months, of driving round the country, meeting the local road safety committees, and making first-hand reports about what we can do to help in the different localities.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that, though London is of immense importance, London, as we all know, is not the whole story. I am very conscious of my responsibilities. I have no wish to dodge them even if I could, for they are written into many statutes and they are known to both sides of the House, not least to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East, who served in the Ministry of Transport, and also to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) who, I understand, will close the debate to the Opposition.
I am, for my sins, the traffic authority for London, but I should like to make it plain that I have nothing to do with London passenger fares. I am the traffic authority for London—for the whole of the London traffic area which covers more than 10 million people. My powers in this field, though considerable, are rather limited. A cook in my house was travelling a few weeks ago in an early morning bus which was going very slowly. She heard an old lady in front, who knew nothing of her iden-

tity, say, "What this bus driver wants is the Minister of Transport on his tail." Unfortunately, my powers are limited and so are the bus drivers' powers, for the frightful congestion in London must be an even greater strain on the drivers who, I think we all recognise, are among the safest drivers in the world.
Elsewhere it is my duty to confirm, modify, or reject sometimes, the traffic regulation orders made by other authorities. In London there is a special machinery which my predecessors will remember. We have the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. This body has a widespread membership of users, Government Departments, Metropolitan boroughs, the London County Council and trade unions. I refer to this body any regulations before I make them. Of course, the responsibility is mine, but I rarely refrain from acting on the advice of that Committee on day to day traffic matters. As they are the first to realise, some of their recommendations are bound to involve great questions of Government policy involving a lot of expenditure. As in their report of 1951 on congestion, other interests are involved and I am not, in the same manner, able wholly to endorse all they say.
In the field of safety I have great responsibility for road traffic, pedestrian crossings and a host of other things, though the actual enforcement is mostly in the hands of the Metropolitan and other police forces. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East reminded the House, I have also under my authority the licensing of vehicles. I share with him the belief that this spot scrutiny, as in Luton, is one of the best ways of identifying vehicles that ought not to be on the road. Whatever the inconvenience caused to the trading community, I am sure that this must be pushed on with with vigour. I am delighted that the whole House agrees with that.
In the sphere of road construction I have a highly difficult task of settling the priorities for the very little amount of money which is available from the Road Fund. I note that Lancashire is well represented and I also see present Members from Staffordshire.

Mr. F. Blackburn: And Cheshire, too.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A great many places have sent requests to me telling really alarming stories not only of the accident rate in their localities, but of the hold-up to local industry—an interference with the pipeline of industry in every degree as severe as an internal block in a factory itself. Under Defence Regulation 56A, it has fallen to me to have to prevent people spending their own money, and this has been about the hardest feature of it.
I am also the trunk road authority, and, as Minister, have responsibility for grants for classified roads. It has not fallen to me yet to open a single road since I became Minister of Transport, but, only a few months ago, when I opened the new Dover car ferry, I was given a gold key on that occasion. A former Minister of Transport who happened to see it in my house said casually, "I have 40 of those at home, given to me for opening roads when I was Minister." It is not in order to add to my collection, but to do something practical to help the transport problems of this country, that I hope that I become as rich in that direction in future.

Mr. Julian Snow: May I now, on behalf of Lichfield, invite the right hon. Gentleman to open the Levett's Fields bypass if and when he will sanction that expenditure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that Dr. Johnson would have had the proper answer, but I am not sure that it would be wholly repeatable here.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East also gave some very graphic illustrations of the accident position, and I am certain that no one can read these figures and realise the wealth of human tragedy which they show without feeling very distressed, and no Minister of Transport could be anything but continually reminded of the dangers of complacency and the need to do everything we possibly can. After the war, restrictions on motoring—petrol rationing and other restrictions—led to a significant drop in road accidents, but, since the restrictions were eased, and with the astonishing exception of 1952, there has been a lamentable increase in these figures, culminating in the very serious figures for the first six months of this year, in which the casualties—killed and injured—total over

103,000, an increase over the corresponding period of last year of over 8,000.
It is true, of course, that we are still below the accident figures of 1938, when we had a smaller population. Now, we have some 20 per cent. more traffic on the roads, but we are creeping, in the last six months, alarmingly close to that figure, and I think we ought to wait until the end of the year before we claim that we are actually better off than in 1938. Certainly, we are far worse off than we were in 1952. The May figures show 432 dead, an increase of 80 on last year for the same month; June, 407, an increase of 25, and the death roll already in these six months is up to 2,274, an increase of 184 on last year.
It is, I think helpful, when what we can do for the roads is bound to be limited, to break up the accident figures into certain categories and show what all of us can do for the different categories. All road users contributed to this increase, but the main increases in the five months to the end of May were among motor-cyclists, other drivers and, almost the most tragic of all, child pedal cyclists. Pedestrians, and particularly old pedestrians, and passengers show a smaller increase, but still an increase on the figures of last year.
I received a letter today, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did, asking if we could specify what are the sorts of causes of accidents, and if we could give them in tabular form. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of analysing figures quickly enough to have an impact on the public mind, and it is even then not certain that any one factor is the real compelling factor. Police records show that the following are among the leading causes: Turning to the right without due care; misjudging clearance, distance or speed; careless crossing of road junctions; overtaking improperly; excessive speed, having regard to local conditions; and, in the field of pedestrians, the story is continually one of pedestrians who cross or step into the street, to quote the police phrase, "heedless of the traffic." These faults were probably the most important factors, and well over half the accident returns come under these headings.
If I may now give one or two figures of an analytical kind, in the first five months of this year, there has been a


7 per cent. increase in the number of motor-cyclists killed, a 4 per cent. increase in pedal cyclists injured, and it is possible to analyse even further the extent and nature of the tragedy. Here, I should like to say how grateful we all are to the newspapers for their attitude to this great social evil, and, if I pick out one newspaper, it is not to suggest that most of the others are not doing the same, but the "News Chronicle "sent me the other day a very interesting analysis showing the danger age in the case of children to be between four and seven—before they go into school and get exercised in the drill which is now almost universal or even use controlled school crossings, which I will talk about a little later. The hon. Gentleman's own wife played some part in this direction in earlier days, and he knows that this accident tendency gets better when children go to school.
When they leave school on getting into their 'teens, the percentage grows worse, and so it goes on steadily until we reach the 70s at which the figures are catastrophic. It is, indeed, seven times as dangerous for a person of 70 to go on the roads as a child of 12. It ought to be possible—and sometimes we are doing it—to identify old and rather infirm people, infirm rather than old, by a mark such as a coloured stick like the blind people carry.
The most dangerous age for pedal cyclists appears to be 15, for motor cyclists 25 and motorists 20 or 35. It is a ghastly picture of incalculable loss of the nation's wealth. The road research people are now working on it, and I wish to join in the tribute paid to Dr. Glanville and his staff. It is estimated that£150 million a year is what we lose in injury and accident alone, quite apart from the human loss and misery, which is quite incalculable.
I know that we can produce figures to show that we are not as bad as other countries. The accident rate is rising steadily in a country like Germany, which has very fine roads and an autobahnen system and two million fewer cars, yet more casualties than we have. The rate is also rising in America. It is true that others are worse than we are and that their roads are more dangerous, but that does not absolve us from our duty of

doing all that we can. Everybody, even the most trusted pedestrian, must accept the fact that the rate is the highest since 1938.
The total number of vehicles registered in this country has gone up and quite extraordinary figures are now available for the increases during last year. If hon. Members would care to have them, I will send them these figures, or will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I can say now that, while in 1952 there were 37,000 new cars and motorcycles registered on an average each month, this year, in January there were 47,000, in February 36,000, and, in March 45,000.
It really is the most astonishing figure, showing that the average new registrations for each of the first three months of this year were 43,000, compared with 37,000 a month for last year. That is, of course, before the summer months. Some very interesting research work has been done by a number of economists in this field, and I see in the "Westminster Bank Review" of a recent month a calculation which suggests that by 1965 there may well be over six million vehicles in Britain. At the moment there are under five million, and of these there may well be 3,320,000 private cars.
As I said, we have to try and face up to what we can do and not rely merely, or indeed mainly, on improvement of the roads. I do not deny the value of road improvement, and I will come to that a little later, but I think we would be losing sight of the possibility of what, at any rate, if started now would not result for years if we concentrated too much on the road side. We must search for every possible way of dealing with the situation with the roads only slightly improved—slightly but steadily—from what they are now.
When I point out that the maintenance of our roads has dropped by 15 per cent. in recent years, that we have millions of pounds of work which we have started, such as the Purfleet Tunnel, and have not finished—the most uneconomic expenditure of all—it shows what a tremendous amount is needed for these things, which will not mean new trunk roads or new bypasses, as well as for any other claims that those new roads might demand.
As I said, the problem of enforcement and of giving advice is one for the police,


and I would not entrench on their prerogative or that of my hon. Friend, but I have been reading, rather tardily I am afraid, of the fascinating Lancashire police experiment in the year before the war. It is the report of the Chief Constable of Lancashire on what could be described as a blitz on road accidents in that county—the experimental motor patrol scheme. In one year they succeeded in cutting down the number of killed by 18 per cent. and the seriously injured by 42 per cent., and of children killed by 41 per cent. in one year and of seriously injured by 50 per cent. Up to the war the figures for Lancashire were slightly below the national level.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are now higher.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a very interesting fact, because before the war they were just below the national figure. After this blitz, the figure fell from 5·4 to 2·5 per 1,000. Many problems, not least that of manpower, enter into a repetition of such an experiment, but it shows what can happen when there is an all-out drive in a limited area. This improvement, incidentally, was accompanied by a considerable fall in the number of prosecutions and possibly with an increase in the penalties for those whom it was decided to prosecute.

Mr. Smith: This is a very interesting and informative report on the position in Lancashire It is submitted by students of local affairs throughout the country that the women police are doing very good work. When the right hon. Gentleman is giving consideration to the matter, will he consider using women for this kind of work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a matter on which, I am sure, my hon. Friend will be very pleased to have something to say.
There are certain things in which I have a direct responsibility and there are some quite considerable opportunities open to me, and I am very anxious to take them. There are many people, mostly those who know little about motor cars, who think that it is all a question of speed. I do not think that the House as a whole would take that view. We know that the economic life of the country must be carried on, and there is a strong case, on grounds of economy, for certain types of vehicles whether it be the

three-ton lorry or whatever it may be, going even faster than they do today. We also know that 80 per cent. of the accidents are now occurring in the built-up areas where there is a speed limit of 30 miles an hour.

Mr. Keenan: The trouble is that the speed limit is often exceeded.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have mentioned certain contributory factors, but I think we should be losing sight of what is practical if we pretended that speed was the main factor. There is no evidence to suggest that it is the main factor.
I am constantly being asked, not least by Members of Parliament for North London whose constituencies are cut across by great new bypass roads which have been built to enable people to go faster and so avoid congestion, to impose a speed limit of 30 miles an hour on other roads. I have quite often, in conjunction with local authorities, had to say "No" to requests of this kind. The imposition of a speed limit on a special stretch of road in an urban area is certainly a highly effective deterrent and safeguard, but if over done it will lead to a general disregard of the 30 m.p.h. limit everywhere. If people come to regard it as unreasonable, they are then getting to the mental outlook of disregarding it when they ought most carefully to regard it.
I will give the House some figures. The Dover Road is 70 miles in length and at the moment 41 per cent. of the whole road is restricted. In the case of class 1 and 2 roads in the County of Lancashire, 49 per cent. are already subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I do not think that in an industrial area of that kind one could, without the clearest evidence, frivolously impose more 30 m.p.h. speed limits. If we include the County Borough of Lancashire, 64 per cent. of all the roads in Central and South Lancashire are now subject to the 30 m.p.h. limit. If we take the trunk roads of this country, 17 per cent. are subject to the 30 m.p.h. limit and of the other roads 27 to 28 per cent.
We have to be exceedingly careful what we do about what could be called a too liberal conception of the 30 m.p.h. limit. But there are cases, of course, where it ought to be imposed and where I hope it will be imposed, but elsewhere it may be that a system of traffic lights, and,


in particular, a system of progressive traffic lights, would be a much more effective deterrent. If they are properly placed, it is possible to check the speed of all vehicles along given stretches.
We know from police observation that traffic signals are 90 per cent. effective. Only a handful of people disregard them, and I would urge those who cry out quite naturally, and particularly where children are concerned, for the 30 m.p.h. limit to think of this alternative. These lights are observed, and the general public have accepted them as reasonable. Incidentally, they are inexpensive to erect and that has helped us quite a lot in a period when money is very short. I am glad to say that this year we are giving an increase of£334,000 from the Road Fund for this purpose making a total of about£840,000 in the Estimates for these traffic lights.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Could my right hon. Friend explain what is a progressive traffic light?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Progressive traffic lights are so arranged as to check individual cars along stretches of the road so that they do not group together at successive lights, but are held up sufficiently for safety to be observed. I could draw it afterwards for my hon. Friend. I am not certain that I could explain it as simply as I could draw it. Incidentally, the only person who knew exactly how they worked was Sir Stafford Cripps. I once asked him if he had ever found any problem beyond his mental comprehension. He said that that was one which he nearly found too difficult to understand, but that he understood it before he finished with the case.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if these traffic lights are so inexpensive, they take so long to erect? I am informed that it would take five to six months to erect traffic lights along a line of roads in which I am interested.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly follow up any particular hold up of that kind. That is just the value of a debate of this kind. If any hon. Member has a similar case I can assure him that speedy action will be most welcomed in these matters, especially by those devoted officers who, as the hon. Gentleman said,

have felt so frustrated by the failure to get adequate funds in the last few years.

Mr. Frank Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman was talking about built-up areas and the restricted speeds in them, but he has not correlated them with the percentage of accidents. He said that the built-up percentage was 41 on the roads in South Lancashire and 17 per cent. on the roads to Dover. Is the accident rate less there, or not? Does he not agree that the most dangerous idea of the lot is the three lines of traffic, with two white lines? It is the most dangerous in my experience.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would hesitate to say which is the most dangerous, because everything which may look quite innocent can turn into something dangerous. I did give the figure before, when I said that about 80 per cent. of the accidents happened in built-up areas. I do not think that the figures for any one county are diffierent from those for the country as a whole.
Another thing I can do is to push out the new Highway Code. The Departmental Safety Committee, over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides in my Department, is meeting on the 30th of this month to finalise the Highway Code supplementary material and, I hope, to finalise and endorse the Code as a whole. I will send it to representative organisations, and the way will then be clear to publish it.

Mr. Nicholson: I remember that when the Highway Code was originally brought out there was great feeling in this House that we could not amend it. It seems ridiculous that the Minister should be able to send it only to representative organisations, who may amend it. Hon. Members might be given a chance to look at it for that purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us that opportunity.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a very sensible suggestion. I do not see any reason why it should not be done. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows from his experience why it was not done before. I will try to identify Members of Parliament as far as I can with such useful projects.
We have already given a great deal of consideration to a comprehensive driving manual giving elaborate details of the principles of good driving and some not


quite elementary instruction on the working of the vehicles themselves. I would be very interested to hear if hon. Members feel that such a publication would serve a useful purpose. It would be a great deal cheaper than many of the more elaborate trade publications and it could be made to cover a much wider field. This would do something to train people better. We would gladly look at the possibility of publishing such a manual.
I did break up the figures of accident which I gave, and I dealt with motor cycles. There is a very disturbing number of deaths of young people, and 50 per cent. of all the motor cycling casualties admitted to our hospitals are with head injuries. It seems to be an act of sheer lunacy not to wear a crash helmet which, as a newspaper said lately, is built with the British Standards Institute special safeguard and can be bought for the cost of six gallons of petrol.
I intensely dislike compulsion where voluntary action will work, but I have been, and I am still, seriously wondering whether this is not a field where compulsion should be insisted upon. I am reluctant to do it, and not only because of the difficulty of enforcement—anybody who goes on the Great West Road can count the number of young men motor cyclists who have such crash helmets and will appreciate that there is a real problem of enforcement—but because I believe that the lesson can be brought home by example.
The Research Board in their Report a year or two ago drew attention to the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the casualties were head accidents, and that this was about twice as great as the corresponding proportion of seriously injured Army motor cyclists, all of whom wear crash helmets. I would say to parents who are anxious about life in the Army for their young men, that if they were as anxious to make their motor cycling sons wear crash helmets we might get somewhere nearer to the heart's desire.
I am glad to say that on 27th July, that is this week, the British Standards Institute issued their first specification for a crash helmet for everyday wear by motor cyclists. It ought to be a matter of absolute honour for every home in the land where there is a motor cyclist

to ensure that a crash helmet is worn, on all occasions preferably, but most certainly on all occasions when speed may be indulged in.
Another problem with regard to motor cycles is the difficulty of initial training. It is very hard to have people driving alongside a man who is learning to drive a motor cycle on the highway. I would commend through our House and through individual members the R.A.C. and Auto Cycle Union Motor Cycle tuition scheme. It is very cheap. Young men can learn to ride on motor cycles provided by the motor cycling club, and do so off the highway. There are 70 such clubs throughout the country. These organisations deserve every congratulation, and everything that can be done will be done to spread them throughout the country.
Just as I was coming into the House I received a letter from the Ilford Motor Cycle and Light Car Club begging me in the course of my speech in today's debate to instruct all local councils to lay out a suitable piece of ground within their boundaries so that the local motor cycle club can organise an A.C.U. learner-training scheme. I know it will come hard to a lot of councillors and to some Members of Parliament to realise that motor cycling is the way of life of millions of young men, but so it is, and every council should co-operate so that we can have a widespread observance of that scheme.
In regard to pedal cyclists the figures are, as I said, very disturbing. The organised cyclists clubs appear to have a road safety consciousness, and on the whole I think they have done well in very difficult conditions. They have done remarkably well, because it is not among the organised cycling clubs, but the single cyclists or the small party all bicycling together, that the danger lies. I would remind hon. Members of that terrifying picture in the recent book by the Road Economic Research Council, "The Child on the Road." It is one that we should all take to heart. The book shows that it is 30 times more dangerous for a small boy to be out on a bicycle than it is for him to be on his feet. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, that most excellent body which is doing very valuable work, runs a safe cycling school. They give certificates of training and proficiency badges. They would gladly


extend their activities to other parts of the country if there was a local demand. I hope that there will be such a local demand.
I have been asked to make Regulations about pedal cyclists, including one to make the carriage of bells compulsory. This we have decided not to do. Indeed, the Committee on Road Safety did not urge it. After a great deal of thought—because Regulations do not come very easily to me—I have decided to issue a regulation as soon as possible making the carriage of two efficient brakes compulsory on all bicycles, whether old or new. I am sending the proposed Regulation to the interested parties to examine.

Mr. Callaghan: I only want to bring out the full facts. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this problem in relation to child cyclists. He referred to the report of the Research Council. The Council asked what the child cyclists did to put themselves in danger. They answered the question by saying that two-thirds of the injuries were caused when children were just going straight ahead, neither overtaking nor passing. It seems that there is a joint responsibility for accidents happening to children.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I quite agree. None the less, efficient brakes would be a help to 12 million cyclists. The police, despite their very great and pressing problems of manpower, are in favour of this proposal. The Road Research Council say that the internal expanding brake is very much more suitable, particularly for new cycles. I earnestly ask manufacturers of bicycles to bear this in mind as, in view of the experts, who have tested many types of machine, it may be a prime factor for safety for children, so many of whom have been unnecessarily killed.
Finally, in these various categories there is the category of pedestrians. Some 45,000 to 50,000 road accidents a year are found on analysis to be due to the fault of the pedestrian himself. With zebra crossings, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) deserves the main credit, and with the lighting of the zebra crossings which was decided upon by the present Government, we have done our best to help in that field.
We shall go on in every possible way, but much of the remedy lies in the hands of the pedestrians themselves. They, of course, ought to read the Highway Code and not airily dismiss it, as some do, as if it were only for motorists or motorcyclists. It is essential that pedestrians should know at least the braking distance within which a motor car can stop and the salutary results of what may happen if one crosses too near.
I am considering whether to ask Parliament for some powers to carry out experiments in some form of compulsion on pedestrians at dangerous crossings and elsewhere. We have given a good deal of thought to this matter, because undoubtedly it will need the co-operation of the public. If the public do not co-operate, enforcement will be almost impossible but I think that we have reached a stage in losses of pedestrians which demand a more revolutionary approach.
Last year pedestrian casualties on or near crossings in built-up areas fell by 5,500 as compared with the year before. It may be said that some of this reduction may be due to the reduction in the number of crossings, but the greatest factor undoubtedly was the zebra crossings. Unfortunately, the novelty of the zebras is wearing off in some minds. One cannot have a new idea every year or the public will become bemused. We must get back to having the public regard the zebra crossings as the only safe place to cross.
A number of Private Members' Bills have been of great value in relation to lighting. Curiously enough, most of the legislation on lighting has come from Private Members, including the 1947 Road Lighting Act and the two recent Acts for which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) were responsible. We are increasing the grants for street lighting and authorising expenditure of some£2 million a year. We hope to increase this by over 25 per cent. this year. Those are all ways in which we can help.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of what has been the effect of the twinkling light?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is too early to say, but the police and others in many districts feel that it has been successful. It has not been sufficiently universally applied as yet to secure much value from it, but where it has been applied it seems to be working pretty well.
Other proposals have been put forward by road safety committees and other bodies. If any hon. Members want information about any particular subject and want to know why the Government have not accepted all the recommendations, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be very pleased to answer them at the close of the debate. We hope to introduce legislation at a fairly early date on road traffic control matters, and some of the features of these proposals will figure in that legislation.
The last point with regard to accidents relates to the problem of better roads as a contributory factor towards cutting down the number of accidents. I will not quote overmuch of the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). It is true that he was dealing with maintenance and not new construction, but he said that the safety factor had not been imperilled, or words to that effect, by inadequate maintenance. We all realise that roads are a contributory factor to road accidents. No case disputing that, supported by whatever figures, would be accepted by the people as a whole.
A much stronger case can be made for better roads on other grounds—as part of our national production drive—but nevertheless it is true to say that better roads would undoubtedly cut down the number of road accidents. On this issue I cannot do better than refer the House to some excellent addresses given recently by Mr. C. T. Brunner and the remarkable research work done at Birmingham by Professor Gilbert Walker and Messrs. Beesley and Waters. I have met them more than once and I have found them of great value in their contribution to this and other problems.
Most of the accidents still occur in built-up areas and it looks as if the best way to deal with accidents is not by an ambitious road programme, though there is a case for that on other grounds, but by dealing individually with the thousands

of black spots. Some 80 per cent. of all accidents take place in built-up areas where most of the pedestrians and traffic are concentrated and from which very little of either can be shunted away. If one takes an analysis, such as the most interesting one which the "New Statesman" made a week or two ago, one finds most revealing facts.
In 1951, on a straight road where there was a speed limit the number of accidents all over the country was 52,000. The number where there was no speed limit was 18,000. On junctions where there was a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. the accidents numbered 43,000. Where there was no speed limit the number was 6,000. On cross-roads with a speed limit there were 22,000 accidents, whereas on crossroads with no speed limit accidents numbered 3,000. So it looks as if the best way to cut down accidents is not by doing anything spectacular but by tackling thousands of dangerous spots all over the country, such as crossings, roundabouts and so on. It costs£3,000 to eliminate one accident a year on any one black spot, but on purely economic grounds when every accident is costing£500 there is a very good return there, leaving out of account altogether the gain in human rejoicing.

Mr. Keenan: Are not the figures which the Minister has quoted, showing fewer accidents where there is no speed limit, due to the fact that where there is a speed limit the area is built up and there is a concentration of population whilst the population in the areas free of speed limit is dispersed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The point that I was making was that there is a mass of population in the built-up areas and they cannot be diverted because they live and work there and therefore we have to concentrate upon improving safety measures in those areas.
We are trying to concentrate first and foremost on the black spots and this year and last year grants have been£3,250,000 of which£2,500,000 have come from the Road Fund. Some 80 per cent. of this has been now committed. I hope that the plea that I now make for a reduction in accidents is more effective than the plea which I made when I was first appointed the Minister.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we have come to a stage where we have reached road saturation and we may have to impose a limit on the number of vehicles that can be allowed on the road?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like the hon. Member to start working out the privileged classes under such limitations. I have heard it said that if only those who have paid for their own motor car were allowed in London we might solve the problem. I do not endorse that view, but I hope that I shall be succeeded by somebody else before I have to draw up a list of those who are allowed to have motor cars and those who are not.
There is a very strong case indeed for a road programme, but a much stronger case for a road programme for the improvement of production than for alleviating accidents. As the House knows, the present Government, and their predecessors when the rearmament drive started and a year or two after the very hopeful speech of the former Minister of Transport under the Labour Government, were forced to place severe limitations on capital investment on the construction of roads. It has been argued often that motorists pay a tremendous amount of money and therefore there ought to be a splendid road system, but I do not think that the spokesman of any party now would claim that the yield of motor taxation should determine the level of road construction. The taxation on motorists, like other indirect taxation, is imposed to keep down inflation by restraining purchases and raising the revenue for Government expenditure.
No indirect tax can now be earmarked for a specific item. The problem of deciding how much we are going to spend is a matter of policy. It is also a matter of priority. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East half hinted that there is no longer any great problem. Indeed, we hope that so far as materials are concerned, the situation is improving, but we also have our problem of priorities.
I read lately a phrase to this effect: "To lay down new roads in the Welfare State, we shall have to give up something else." There is quite a lot of truth in that observation. I do not deny that the construction of good motor roads and improvements

in great cities and elsewhere will yield a dividend. On Thursday I am going to Birmingham, where one firm has told me that if there was quite a relatively small loop road made in Birmingham, the Digbeth-Deritend road—not a very ambitious project in terms of pre-war expenditure—this firm alone would save£3,000 a year, the capital value of which is about one-third the total cost of the road.
I read in one of Mr. Brunner's books that a road from Warrington to Keer Bridge costing£12½ million would yield a 10 per cent. dividend in the saving of the cost of vehicles every year of£1,300,000. I do not quarrel with those estimates. We have had to limit Government expenditure and capital investment expenditure; we have had to keep Government expenditure within bounds, and to keep the amount of capital investment limited in relation to national savings. Otherwise, we would have been in a much worse financial position than we are today,
I think the situation is slightly improving, and, while I would not say that we are out of our difficulties in every way in this field, perhaps we could regard the very modest sum now allowed for new construction,£1 million, as the end of the beginning. We now start with Estimates for the Road Fund grant in aid, of£33,131,000 for the coming year, which is£1 million up on last year. I know that costs have risen, but we are in a position to use some of this£1 million for new construction, and that itself is a very dramatic improvement.
In this new construction I have got to remember, as I hinted before, the huge amount of money for the completion of schemes like the Dartford Tunnel which have already started. It might be argued by later historians that the Government ought to spend£27½ million, when they get that money, on completing the larger schemes which we started and have not finished, but I do not suppose that it will work out quite that way. Those are very formidable things to confront any Minister.
In Scotland we have undertaken to spend£1 million in the Highlands in the next three years, and in Wales we are awaiting the Report of the Lloyd Committee in which there has been a great


deal of emphasis laid on roads. I am hoping to be able to be more liberal with local authorities in the working of Defence Regulation 56A, provided the total investment programme is not exceeded. We have laid down plans this year for new construction and major improvements, which will cost£22 million, to be begun next year or as soon thereafter as resources permit. This programme will go really beyond the black spots and will begin tackling the terrible problem of congestion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Dartford Tunnel several times, and Scotland. Does he remember his own experience at 6 o'clock one morning, and is he going to do anything about that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Lest the House be in any doubt about the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I should explain that I was in a train travelling to Eccles which was kept standing in the fog waiting for the swing bridge to open. I agree that that problem, with a lot of people being held up, including men working on piece work, will certainly have to be tackled. It is a matter which I am never likely to lose sight of or be allowed to forget.
I shall be interested if hon. Members in the course of this debate will deal with one or two of the suggestions which have been made, including the possibility of toll roads and toll bridges, which ought not to be completely dismissed. Parliament gave powers for the Mersey Tunnel, the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel and the Forth Road Bridge. Many people hold that motoring pays enormous taxes, but it might be argued that some motorists would be prepared to pay a little more and get a decent trunk road. Anyway, I would be very interested to hear the comments of my colleagues on that thought.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but may I ask whether he is satisfied that the extra money that he has said he is prepared to allow for roads will cover the increase in costs which is likely to take place?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, in these Estimates there is provision for that sort of thing. The Treasury must take some account of rises in costs, but I am nature-

ally bound by the same considerations as apply to all other Government expenditure when there is a sudden and unexpected rise in costs after an estimate has been prepared.
There has also been discussion about the possibility of a loan and there has been some misunderstanding with the British Transport Commission in this matter. The Harrow disaster, leading as it will to the expenditure of many millions on automatic train control, has not unnaturally led some enthusiasts for road development—and I count myself as an enthusiast—to believe that the railways are in some way receiving preferential treatment.
As most hon. Members know, the Commission have powers under the Transport Act to raise money by floating loans with Treasury authority. This is merely a means of finding the ready money within their own investment programme. It does not in any way increase the amount of investment which they are allowed to do. The investment ceiling applies to them as it applies to the roads. The precise point at which the ceiling comes down either on the railways or on the roads is, of course, a matter of policy, and I am very interested when hon. Members put forward arguments in favour of a higher ceiling for road development.
The last matter with which I want to deal is the problem of traffic congestion, and if I relate it primarily to London, it is because London's experience at the Coronation will be most recent in people's minds. I am conscious that it exists in many other places as well—from Birmingham to Bristol, Lancashire, the Tor Point Ferry to Plymouth with a mile long queue, Queen's Ferry, the Medway, Don-caster Bridge about which the local authorities came to see me last week, Birmingham and many other cities. If I relate this problem to London, it is not because I think London is the only important place.
We have had some slight improvement this year. Motorists in London and travellers in London buses may regard this as almost incomprehensible, but the improvement in London traffic lights has been quite definite and marked. We have been taking censuses. At Piccadilly Circus the delay to travelling is now cut down from 115 seconds at the lights in 1950 to 69 seconds. In the case of


Tottenham Court Road to Euston Road the delay is reduced from 84 to 61 seconds. We are now hoping to introduce a system of these progressive signals in Oxford Street as well. We have also introduced many parking restrictions with the aid of the local authorities, and we are having an experiment prohibiting the loading and unloading of goods on the free side of certain streets.
The result of this has been a slight improvement, and last year London Traffic moved half a mile an hour faster than in 1950. [Laughter.] Lest one should laugh at that modest improvement, I would remind the House of Mr. Valentine's observation that a one mile an hour improvement saves the London travelling public£2 million, and so every improvement is highly desirable. I accept the demand for the four main artery schemes for London, and I hope it will not be long before I can take some token action at least in that field, to the extent of some£9 million or£10 million. We are not in the least opposed to the proposal for arcading, and the new hotel in Conduit Street will have that provision made, but, as has been said, the problem of congestion in London is much magnified by the absence of parking facilities.
I want to thank the Committee on London Parking for their most admirable Report. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South suggested that not one penny should go to London until Lancashire and the other counties had had something done for them, but he cannot have read the Report quite so carefully as he said.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I read it very carefully.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was the very essence of the Report that the scheme would be virtually self-supporting. In Mr. Samuel's Committee the very imaginative idea was born of an underground parking system in London, which would be self-supporting. I am most anxious that we should carry this a stage further and have at least a large scale experiment. It must be remembered, however, that a lot of other people have to be consulted. There is the problem of amenities. It is a remarkable fact that a committee with so many interests, including the police, Government Departments, road users and the London County

Council, should have come to an almost unanimous conclusion.
I am not one of those pessimists who believe that if we make better parking arrangements in London we shall increase the London transport problem, owing to people coming into the City who now leave their cars outside. If that is the result we shall have to think again, but I do not think it is anything but a counsel of despair. Anyhow, I am sure that we cannot leave it as it is, and I hope that each individual Member of the House will use whatever influence he has in helping experiments of this kind to be carried on. They cannot be carried out without the good will of the public, both in the building of such garages and their use when built.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has had a very fair share of the interruptions while I have been making my speech, and I gave him an earnest of my interest in his county by the early morning start I made some months ago. I am fully mindful of the needs of other counties and cities, but we shall not get anywhere if we play one part of the country against another. This is a United Kingdom and, despite the splendid efforts of the police, the parking and other arrangements in this capital city are inexcusably inadequate. The sooner we can do something effective in London, the sooner will its influence spread throughout the country, and other authorities, with Government aid, will be able to follow the good example.
I am very grateful that we have had an interesting debate so far, and I look forward to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House in tackling a problem which we recognise confronts all parties, and deeply involves national survival.

Mr. James Hudson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to make any reference to the part played by alcohol in road accidents. Has not he heard of the Lord Chief Justice's complaint?

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Freeman: I do not wish to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) on the subject of alcohol, although it plays an important part and should not be overlooked. The


courts do not deal adequately with accidents which are caused by those who take alcohol, but I want to call attention to one or two other matters which have been neglected.
As this matter is a major influence in public affairs, and road accidents now caused 4,000 or 5,000 deaths and between 200,000 and 250,000 casualties a year, some people recommend that a Royal Commission might be set up to solve the problem. The course would be strongly recommended if it were not for the fact that it would take two or three years before we got the Report, and the delay would probably hold up improvements that might be made, but the day will come when a Royal Commission on this matter will have to be set up, and we shall then have all the facts concerning this problem.
It is perfectly true that traffic in this country has increased enormously since 1922. There are now five times the number of cars and other vehicles that there were then, and the density in Great Britain is the highest in the world. That is a factor which we cannot ignore. According to the International Road Federation, although the density of traffic on our roads is 18 per mile, in the United States it is only 17, in Belgium 16, in France seven, in Sweden four, and in Pakistan less than one. We have the densest vehicle population in the world.
Although it is recognised that cost per mile is not the only factor in regard to road accidents, it is well to bear that factor in mind. According to the report of a speech by Mr. Brunner, which has been referred to earlier,£10 per mile is spent on the roads in the United States,£4 in Portugal,£2 12s. in Sweden,£1 17s. in Belgium and only£1 9s. in Great Britain, so, of all the progressive countries, we are probably spending the least per mile. I am sure the Minister would agree that more should be done to improve our roads from that point of view alone.
The case which occurred at the North London Magistrates' Court and was quoted in connection with justice on the roads is borne out by another case of which I heard only recently. In this case the accident was seen by a policeman, and it indicates the disregard which is often paid to regulations for road safety.
A widow, who was the matron of a hospital, was walking along a road and a motorist was seen 100 yards away when she arrived at a zebra crossing. She looked in all directions very carefully, and before this motorist arrived she put up her hand to indicate that she was crossing. The motorist took no notice whatsoever until he arrived within a distance of six yards from the crossing. According to the police constable, he then skidded and knocked into this poor widow, who is now in hospital, permanently injured.
That motorist was fined£5 and£3 4s. 6d. costs for driving without due care and attention. His licence was not suspended, and no further action was taken. For knocking down this poor old woman and injuring her for the rest of her life he was fined only£5. This man had had four previous convictions, one of them only six weeks before this accident. The magistrate had power to terminate his licence, but he did not do so. In such a case much more drastic action should and could be taken by the courts. It makes the public very doubtful whether sufficient is being done by the courts to call attention to cases of this description.
The other case which I want to mention was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). A lorry driver knocked down a person and was fined£10. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents had given him a medal for safe driving. Many people are asking whether the£72,000 which we pay to the Royal Society is being adequately spent and whether that money, or some of it, could not be spent more advantageously. It is true that the Pedestrians' Association, the National Cyclists Touring Club and other associations, together with local authorities, have been called into a general inquiry which the Minister is conducting, and at which evidence is given with regard to road accidents, but all the sums provided in connection with road accidents are passed through the hands of the Royal Society, and it seems that that money could be spent more adequately if other organisations had control of some of those funds.
Another point is the percentage of unsafe cars on the roads. It has been reported that 70 per cent. of the cars on


the road today are not in a roadworthy condition. The same comment applies to bicycles. Unfortunately, a cyclist can do almost what he likes on the roads. He needs no registration and no third party insurance. He is not responsible, except indirectly through the courts, for any accident. He need have no brakes or satisfactory steering. A child of three or four can go on to a road with no previous experience, or a man of 90, and can carry a passenger if provision has been made for that, without any responsibility but causing a good deal of danger to the public.
I wonder whether the time has not come when we should do what is done by many other countries—register bicycles and see that they are in a road-worthy condition, as well as seeing that cars are in a roadworthy condition. We should also place a limit on cyclists, particularly on children who ride fairy cycles on roads where cars are being driven at 80 to 90 miles an hour and where there is no restriction whatever. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would take cognisance of those facts and would see what could be done to restrict very small children in their riding on roads when they have no experience or responsibility and cause a good deal of danger.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I said about pedal cyclists was that we would introduce regulations making the carrying of two efficient brakes compulsory.

Mr. Freeman: That is the first step, but I do not see why the whole bicycle should not have to be roadworthy, because steering and other matters are equally important. I think every cyclist should know that his cycle is in a roadworthy condition in exactly the same way as a motorist should know. I am not sure that we ought not to have a registration system whereby, whenever his licence is issued, the motorist would also have to produce a certificate to say that his car is in a roadworthy condition. It would mean that his car would have to be examined at any rate once a year. With 70 per cent. of the vehicles in an un-roadworthy condition at present, it seems that the time is opportune for more drastic action in this direction.
Lastly, I want to deal with a point which has been raised previously con-

cerning the Severn Bridge. This project has been under consideration for many years. At present South Wales is almost an island, and I hope this project will be undertaken and some definite action planned to further this scheme which will bring not only amelioration to the traffic problem of South Wales, which for many years has been one of the poverty-stricken areas, but will also bring amelioration to the whole of West England in solving a traffic problem which is growing more and more acute there at the great expense of all concerned.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I know many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall therefore keep my remarks as brief as possible. I venture to address the House because I was Chairman of a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee which recently produced a Report on roads. I hope that hon. Members interested in the subject will think it worth while to read that Report and the evidence, because an immense amount of interesting material came out of it, and we endeavoured to make the Report a source of easy reference which would contain facts, figures, and tables not easily available elsewhere.
What struck me most about the evidence which we received on the whole subject was how much the subject lends itself to flights of imagination and to building castles in the air, and how very difficult it is to get any definite information. We were criticised for the last sentence of our recommendation in which we said:
Your Committee are bound to record the fact that they have received no convincing evidence of such deterioration of the roads, consequent upon the restriction of expenditure upon maintenance, as would constitute an appreciable danger to road users, or a serious threat to the preservation of the value of the roads as a national asset.
With all the Ministry of Transport's facilities and those of the highway authorities at our disposal, as well as that of the numerous bodies interested, it was amazing to find that we could not get any sort of table showing the details of the roads in various categories of deterioration. I expected that we should be faced with evidence to this effect, "There are so many miles which will fall out of use in three years if something is not done, and so many miles which will


fall out of use in six years and so on." But we did not get that. An over-all annual survey of the roads was undertaken by the Ministry of Transport a few years ago, collating the reports of the various highway authorities, but that has been dropped on the grounds of economy. We met scores of people and many organisations which said our roads were falling into a worse and worse condition, but not one could produce anything which was not merely an opinion.
In these matters we get a tremendous volume of opinion, but very little factual evidence. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said he is convinced that the time has come when a large investment in new road construction would prove to be economic from the long-term point of view. He may be right, he may be wrong; but unless he can produce some facts and figures to prove that opinion to be correct, then it is merely an opinion which is not worth no more than that of anyone else in the country. I was glad to hear the Minister give certain examples of where definite estimates had been made of the saving to certain businesses or to industry as a whole if certain new roads were constructed.
My first plea, therefore, is for more information about the roads and less vague talk. I am afraid I was left with the impression that a lot of the complaints about our present road system—I am not talking about the lack of new construction but about existing roads-was based simply on imagination. It is an easy subject about which to become very crank-minded. I hope the Minister will listen to this plea by the Select Committee for more information and more facts.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not disagree at all with the suggestion that we should get as many facts as we can, but the hon. Member should give attention to the views of engineers who have been concerned with this problem for a very long time and who have said that the foundations of roads which were constructed for light horse traffic will suffer badly over the next few years because of the volume of heavy vehicular traffic which they are carrying today.

Mr. Nicholson: I do not think any Committee or serious body of people should pay any attention to things like

that unless they are backed by examples. Some engineers say that, some say the exact opposite. As a Member of a Select Committee of the House, I refuse to accept expressions of opinion and demand factual evidence. These engineers do not produce factual evidence. It can be produced when roads are seen to deteriorate and when they collapse; that is factual evidence. A mere expression of opinion, that a state of affairs underneath the ground on large stretches of road in the United Kingdom is dangerous, is quite valueless to any serious-minded person unless it is backed by physical examples. I am glad the hon. Member raises that point because that is typical of the attitude of mind which pervades the whole of this problem.
I want to turn to the question of accidents. Neither the Minister nor the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East drew quite a fair picture. Nobody does anything but deplore the accidents which take place on the roads. No single accident is necessary, and every human life lost or human being injured represents individual suffering of high magnitude. We must keep our heads about this, however. I want to give the House some figures, I want to consider accidents from two points of view—first, per million of the population and secondly, per number of vehicles on the roads. The worst year for accidents per million of the population was 1941, when 197 people were killed on the roads per million of the population. In 1952 that figure had sunk to 96. Of course the war years were exceptional. In the 10 years before the war, I think, the figures were between 143 and 164 per million of the population, but even compared with that, the figure of 96 in 1952 represents an improvement. I do not think there is any need to lose our heads about accidents.
Let us take the figures per 10,000 motor vehicles on the roads. Again, one of the war years is the worst—1944—when 45 persons were killed per 10,000 motor vehicles, whereas in the last year before the war the figure was 22. In 1952 the figure was 11. Again I say there is no cause to lose our heads, or to despair in face of these figures.
Let me now give some comparable figures with regard to children. In the last year before the war 1,130 children were killed on the roads. The number


rose to over 1,500 in 1941. In 1952 it had fallen to 786. Per one million of the child population, in 1952 the figure was 71. Before the war that figure was always well over 100. Per 100,000 motor vehicles—100,000 this time—in 1938 the figure was 38 children killed; in 1952, 18. It certainly shows there has been an improvement, and while I stress that improvement, it is not in an endeavour to breed an atmosphere of complacency about it, but because I think that when any problem becomes viewed emotionally, in an exaggerated fashion, that militates against a wise solution of that problem. So I think we should try to keep our heads about road accidents.
My view about road accidents is this. Whatever we may call it, bad manners or anything else, they are due to plain, honest to goodness, bad driving. Bad driving is, in the main, cured by only two methods of approach. It may be cured by propaganda and proper training. I know myself that I am a very variable driver. Sometimes I drive very well. Sometimes I suddenly become aware that I am tired and driving badly, and I take a pull at myself.
We all know that as individuals we are all susceptible to propaganda, and I do not think there is enough propaganda. It is not good enough only to make speeches in this House. They may accomplish a good deal, and a good deal can also be accomplished by appeals, and a good deal can be accomplished by letters to the newspapers, but I think we want notices and appeals stuck up on hoardings to people to drive carefully. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is not here now.

Mr. J. Hudson: I am here.

Mr. Nicholson: I thought the hon. Gentleman had nipped out for a quick one. I should like to see a propaganda campaign and publicity about avoiding a drink before driving.

Mr. Keenan: Better still, do not drink at all.

Mr. Nicholson: I would not say that. Now as to training. I myself have never passed a driving examination. I got a licence before all that, but I think that after a certain age it should be compulsory on everybody, whether he has had

an accident or whether he has not, to pass a driving examination. It would fill me with terror, but I think when I reach a mature age I should be asked to undergo that.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Matured Nicholson.

Mr. Nicholson: The function of the police should not be mainly to prosecute. They should not be regarded as the enemies of the driver. They should be regarded as counsellors and advisers of drivers. I entirely disagree with people who say we want heavier penalties and more rigorous enforcement of the law. We do not, in my opinion. We want counsel and advice by the police. We want the policeman in a friendly manner saying, for instance, "Look here, old boy, you pulled out in a dangerous place. You should be more careful." It has been the proud boast of this country that the law-abiding citizen with no criminal intent has always regarded the policeman as a friend. Speaking as a motorist, I do not think motorists do always regard the police as friends. I do not see why motorists should be in a class apart.
One of the most important recommendations of this Committee was one that, I am sorry to say, neither the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East nor my right hon. Friend referred to, and that is that an effort should be made to standardise traffic signals, crossing signals, and all such other devices. To my mind it is ridiculous that the types of traffic signal should be entirely at the choice of the highway authorities. It came out in the evidence given to our Committee that one borough in London refused to have zebra crossings, and we asked the representative of the Minister of Transport what he thought about that. He said, "That is entirely at the discretion of the citizens of that borough," to which I replied that I thought it was as much a matter for the people who passed through it, and all the rest of the population.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the system of the installation of traffic signs and things of that sort should not be uniform and consistent throughout the country. I am shocked that the use of the "Halt" sign and of the "Go Slow" sign, the use of reflector studs and other


things of that nature, vary as between the area of one highway authority and the area of another highway authority. I should like to see it laid down definitely, for example that every road that enters a major road should have a "Halt" sign. One highway authority does not have a "Halt" sign at crossroads but only where there is a T junction, and others may have them at both. I do beg my right hon. Friends to give careful consideration to that aspect of the matter.
Reflector studs, for instance, I regard as being of the utmost value. If they are of the utmost value they ought to be universal. If they are of no value at all there ought not to be any. I think they are the greatest safeguard in fog and at night which we could have. I was much surprised as well as sorry that the Minister did not refer to what I think is a most valuable recommendation in the Select Committee's Report.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certain recommendations were made for further study by the Ministry of Transport, and we are engaged in examining them now. The Report, I think, was published on 29th April. It raised a number of issues about which we must consult the local authorities. My hon. Friend referred to one local authority in London that did not want zebras lit.

Mr. Nicholson: Did not want zebras.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is still more true that they did not want them lit if they had them. We have got to be very careful when dealing with semi-autonomous bodies. I deprecate as much as my hon. Friend individual habits of that kind which strangers entering the locality may not know, but we have to go carefully in a free country, and then we shall get where we want as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholson: I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's words, because he has put his finger on the spot. The difficulty is that the highway authorities are semi-antonomous, and I am wondering whether in certain respects such as the use of traffic signs they should remain semi-autonomous or whether the Minister should not have power to direct, so that necessary action can be taken by the State. I think all this care for the

constitutional position is quite admirable, but if it costs human lives I think we may have to revise our views.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—the question of the road research laboratory. We were impressed by the niggardly way in which it was treated. It comes, of course, under a different Vote; it does not come under the Ministry of Transport Vote; that makes a complication; but I was impressed by the niggardly way it was treated and the fact that the whole of the knowledge of their results is not adequately diseminated to the local authorities for them to use.
We made this recommendation that
The Ministry of Transport and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should consult together with a view to improving the means by which knowledge of the results achieved by the Road Research Laboratory is disseminated,
and we made what we thought was a rather ingenious recommendation to the effect that there should be a switch over from the Treasury contribution to the Road Fund to an increased contribution to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the use of the Road Research Laboratory.
I have rather a feeling that there was a slight prejudice—I hope I am not using an unfair word—against the Road Research Laboratory. It has been starved and treated in a niggardly fashion, but its achievements are absolutely amazing. Due to it the life of the ordinary road surface has been vastly prolonged. It has done remarkable research which will lead to the cheapening of new construction, if and whenever we have any new construction. There is almost no end to the field in which they can bring about results which will achieve remarkable economy.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is fundamentally an economic question, because it would be quite easy to listen to all the enthusiasts and wreck this country's economic recovery; but no opportunity should be lost of finding ways by which we can get better value for the same money. I know that the work of the Road Research Laboratory is one of those fields from which we get our money's worth for a comparatively small investment.
I do not want to conclude without saying that I think the way in which capital


investment devoted to the roads is looked at by the Treasury needs investigation. I shall not detain the House by going into a lengthy technical speech, because hon. Members will find all about it in the Report of the Select Committee, but I think that this is a matter which needs looking into.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: Unlike the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), I do not think that the public really regard the present incidence of traffic accidents other than as something which is deserving of the utmost serious attention.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Nor do I.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman said that we ought not to panic. There is a difference between panicking and shocking those sections of the public who are responsible for accidents.
Although not agreeing with his politics, I have always recognised the great administrative ability of the Minister, and I congratulate him upon his speech this afternoon, which was both able and comprehensive. Nevertheless, he did omit certain matters, no doubt because of the restriction of time.
Yesterday, the armistice in Korea was published in the newspapers of the world and hon. Members will have seen the statistics of the casualties and deaths which have occurred in that war. According to one article which I read—I trust the figures are correct—in the three years ended 26th May this year, the British nation lost 680 killed and there were 3,421 additional casualties. In the first six months of this year, on the roads of this country, there were 2,274 deaths incurred in an overall figure of 103,279 casualties. I think that these figures ought to be quoted because they may perhaps bring the whole problem into better perspective. The trouble is that these figures for the first six months of 1953 are worse than those for the equivalent period of 1952. There have been 184 more deaths this year and 8,122 more casualties.
What worries me is the structure of the consultative machinery upon which the Minister must rely to a great extent for eliminating the danger on our roads. As I understand the structure, at its lower

level we have the local road safety committees and they may work under or with the county council road safety committees. But it is a fact that this is a very loose organisation. There is no uniformity, and I think that uniformity in this matter ought to be enforced. I am advised that the County of Hampshire has no road safety committee. I am also advised that the Isle of Thanet has no road safety committee.
I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that there is no formal contact between these road safety committees and the Departmental Committee on Road Safety? Is it a fact that in reality they operate through regional federations under the auspices of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents? If that is so, I do not think that is right. I think it should be a direct Ministerial responsibility and not a responsibility through the agency of a semi-private organisation, albeit that organisation is responsible and in receipt of a Government grant.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks which he made about my speech. Surely he is conscious of the value of having a central body which sifts and analyses what comes in from the different localities without attempting to prevent what might be sometimes an unpalatable fact reaching the Minister. It is valuable to have a central body. RoSPA has carried out its duties admirably.

Mr. Snow: I do not think that it should be done by a semi-private agency; I think that it should be a direct Ministerial responsibility. Indeed, I think there is force given to my case by the fact that we do get cases where the local road safety committees of a local authority or county council find themselves in conflict with the Ministry's officials.
I raised the case of a certain intersection of roads which bears the essentially English name of Muckley Corner. There we have a direct conflict of opinion about the size of a roundabout which all local opinion considers is absolutely essential to avoid danger at that particular spot. We have the county road surveyor saying that a certain size roundabout is necessary and the Ministry's divisional road engineers saying that a very much bigger roundabout is


necessary. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary tells me in the House that because the island considered necessary is so big, there is not the money to provide it. That goes right against local opinion.
This afternoon, the Minister came to the House and gave notice that he is going to introduce regulations about the provision of two effective brakes on a cycle. The whole House will welcome that, but I think we ought to look into what has been the history behind these proposed regulations. The period of gestation goes back to 1944. I want to demonstrate this whole operation of the consultative machinery by the facts brought to my attention by a certain Mr. Leech who is known to the Minister's Department. On 10th October last year, Mr. Leech wrote to his M.P. saying that, as an experienced motor cyclist, he thought that brakes and bells on pedal cycles ought to be made legally obligatory.
In due course, the Minister replied to this gentleman's M.P. on 23rd October, 1952, and he said in that letter that in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety of December, 1944, there had been a recommendation that cycles should carry bells and have two effective brakes, but, said the Minister, stocks were inadequate to enforce this regulation if such a regulation was put forward.
Mr. Leech, being a persevering type, was not very satisfied with the answer, and he made inquiries in the trade, I have all the correspondence here. He wrote to what he considered to be one of the biggest cycle agency factors in the country, and I take the liberty of quoting their name because they are a responsible company—Halfords—and asked what was the position about brake equipment. They wrote back that they did not understand what the Minister was talking about. They had excessive stocks and they could not sell all of them. They added that with reference to the Minister's observation on the standards of brake equipment, they had no knowledge of such standards.
This is a very important matter because if the Committee on Road Safety is considering certain standards, surely the constructive side of the trade ought to know about them so that they can get the

necessary production plant. That having been checked with Halfords, who said that they had excess stocks, the Minister was informed. He acknowledged the information in a letter on 5th January this year. This is where I must become slightly controversial. The letter from the Minister was written by his private secretary who said that the Minister agreed that the regulation was necessary but he and his Parliamentary Secretary were too fully occupied with the Transport Bill to give the matter immediate consideration. It is not only the delay of the present Minister about which I am complaining. There was also his immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I remember the correspondence clearly. I was naturally very preoccupied, but the matter was high in the list of items to which I wanted to turn afterwards. I have announced that there will be such a regulation. However, it was suggested in 1944, and after that we had a Labour Administration for several years. The present Government have come to a decision fairly fast in all the circumstances.

Mr. Snow: I was qualifying my remarks to the right hon. Gentleman by saying that my right hon. Friend was equally responsible. The Government have been in power for two years and they ought now to have done something about it. The Transport Bill was not popular in large parts of the country, and the provision of proper brakes on cycles ought to have been dealt with before road transport was de-nationalised.
That is not the end of the story. The letter written by the Minister's private secretary on 5th January ended by saying that, because the matter was so important, a further letter on the subject would be written at the end of the month. It was not until 18th May that a proper reply was received. I propose to read it to the House. It ought to be read because it demonstrates the slow machinery for bringing to the attention of the Minister the need for amending legislation or regulations. The letter said:
You will remember our earlier correspondence on the question of making it compulsory for bicycles to have efficient brakes and bells. As you have pointed out, the supply position over these items of equipment is no longer an obstacle to making regulations to this effect, but up to now Ministers have not decided that


this additional piece of legislation was necessary. Very lately a resolution that all bicycles should have two effective brakes has been submitted to the Minister of Transport by the Road Safety Conference of Organisations presided over by Lord Llewellin. The Conference recommended that this, along with a number of other resolutions, should be considered by the Departmental Committee on Road Safety. The resolution is accordingly being referred by the Minister to the Committee, and a reply to this effect was given by the Parliamentary Secretary in the House this afternoon.
That was in May. We are now in July and nearly the end of the Session. In 1944 a responsible Departmental Committee made a recommendation and it has taken all this time for amending legislation to be brought in. It is not good enough. The public are entitled to know why there has been this extraordinarily slow procreative period.
I now turn to capital investment for the removal of danger spots on roads. On 22nd June I put a Question to the Minister asking him what provision there was in the Department's financial set-up specifically for the financing of improvements to roads to remove danger. The Parliamentary Secretary gave me a rather woolly reply. It said, in short, that there was no special fund but any money which was necessary was taken out of the Estimates submitted annually to Parliament.
On 8th July, Lord Leathers, in another place, gave a fairly specific answer. He talked about a special sum of£3 million which had been allotted for the removal of danger spots on our roads, saying that it covered a period of two years, of which we were in the second. I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary could not have told me that the previous month. If the sum of£3 million has been allotted for the sole purpose of dealing with black spots, I cannot understand why it should not have been more specifically brought to the attention of the House, and, if necessary, additional Supply voted for it. If road accidents can in part be eliminated by the provision of more money, let us get on with it and vote more money. I cannot think the House would willingly restrict Supply if it could prevent deaths on the roads.
The Minister talked at some length about the analysis of the causes of accidents. I want to draw one or two other

points to his attention. In the Press notice issued by his Ministry on 19th May there was a special addendum entitled "The wrong way to turn right." On the basis of the analysis prepared by his Department, one must conclude that that is probably the most important factor causing accidents. However, I would ask the Minister whether it is not a fact, from his own personal experience of driving on the roads, that the danger in the case of cyclists and motor cyclists is not so much a car turning right, having had a cyclist in front of it give way, but the second car coming up behind which the cyclist or motor cyclist did not expect. Very often a car overtakes, then the cyclist thinks everything is all right and goes back towards the middle of the road, unaware that another car is coming behind, and usually there is a lot of noise and his attention is distracted and an accident occurs. That is a matter which should be brought to the attention of cyclists and other road users.
Is it not time that we eliminated "Slow" signs? As we approach a major road we see a sign "Slow. Major road ahead." I have seen correspondence in the newspapers about this and my experience leads me to believe that the "Slow" sign is, in itself, a cause of accidents. What does "slow" mean? If one is driving a Bentley it may mean 20–25 m.p.h., if in an Austin 10, 12–15 m.p.h. Variations of that character increase the risk of accident. We ought to follow the American system under which a road is either a "Go" road or a "Stop" road, the responsibility thus being fairly and squarely placed on the shoulders of the users of those roads.
Is it the law that where a village has no lighting system there cannot be a speed restriction? If it is, the matter ought to be looked at. No doubt the Minister's advisers will have read of the very sad accident in the Hampshire village of Bentley recently in which a small child was killed. There is no warning that a crossroads is in the near vicinity, there is no speed restriction, and there are 200 children on what is virtually a main road through a small village. That should be looked at.
There is a rather more delicate point about which the Minister ought to know. It is wrong that any organisation should have a system for pooling funds and


making a payment from them to meet fines. I should have thought that if a fine was imposed on a driver, it ought to be paid by the driver. I do not like the idea of there being a club to which subscriptions are paid for the purpose of meeting fines. It does not seem to be right, and I should imagine that it is precious near contempt of the law.
The House will have seen the quotation in the "Observer" last Sunday from the diocesan letter by the Archbishop of York on the subject of more drastic fines, and even the confiscation of the vehicles of habitual bad drivers. On this I find myself at variance with the hon. Member for Farnham, because I think it is the habitual bad driver and the person who is habitually involved in accidents who should be very severely dealt with.
I should like to refer to certain matters affecting children. Deaths of children in this country are very shocking indeed. During the 12 months ending 31st May this year there have been 787 deaths of children, and in the calendar year 1952 there were 786 such deaths. I think an appeal ought to be made to motorists that if they see ahead children on cycles, they ought to give them that much more room than they would do if they were adult cyclists. There is also the question of the age limit at which children should be permitted on cycles on the roads. This is controversial, but I think I ought to mention it. There is a case for children below a certain age not being allowed on the highway, and that ought to be looked at.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has been kind enough to come this afternoon, I should like to address some specific remarks to him on the provisions which exist under Section 39 (5) of the Education Act, 1944. We are dealing with accidents, and I think one cannot forget the question of school children. There is a very strong case for having another look at Section 39 (5) of the 1944 Act. Perhaps the Minister before he replies will be guided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education on this matter. In Circular 242, which was issued by the Minister of Education, it was laid down what were the exact minimum requirements below which school transport by bus would not be provided. In other words, it would be provided for children

up to the age of eight who must walk two miles to a primary school and children above that age who must walk three miles. Then the Minister said in her circular that she was prepared to consider special cases where there were particular traffic dangers.
I should like to ask how many special applications have been received by local education authorities and how many have been agreed by the Minister. How many applications for providing bus transport for the distances below the minima have been received? In the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on Schools—I am referring to page XIII—there was some mention of£135,000, which was the additional sum necessary to provide transport for children in houses on new estates attending old schools in distant localities. The cause of that is the time lag between the building of houses and the building of schools. I cite this figure because there is a climate of public opinion in some quarters that the public are tired of having their rates added to by the necessity to finance additional school buses. This£135,000 is the sort of thing which irritates some members of the public.
There is no doubt that the cost of running school bus services has reached a very big figure indeed. It amounts to£4 million, but surely it is not too much to ask the public to consider what the effect will be if we make school children go along roads where there is a great volume of traffic and where the accident rate is likely to be high. This affects rural areas and particularly that class of road where there are no footpaths, where there are high hedges, and where there are blind corners. I think it was most ill-advised of the Minister of Education not to be more careful in how she phrased that circular, bearing in mind the additional dangers that must ensue.
I am well aware of the fact—and this may be part of the official answer—that 90 per cent. of pedestrian accidents are in built-up areas, but one cannot help but be impressed by the fact that little children going to school along these foot-pathless roads are in great danger, quite apart from the fact that their faculties, due to fatigue, might not be operating as well as they should. Many of them have to walk long distances.
In that connection I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education to the fact that the present drafting of Section 39 (5) of the 1944 Act states that the distance to the school shall be by the nearest route. In the country there are many villages which are very long indeed. I have one in my own constituency called Stonnall. Little children starting from the wrong end of the village—if I might put it that way—to go to school might have to walk a very great distance. They can be very fatigued at the end of the day, which may impair their faculties particularly in regard to oncoming traffic.
I do not want to detain the House any more except to say that I think the whole House will support the Minister of Transport in any drastic legislation he may consider necessary. Earlier he talked about imposing certain legislation on pedestrians. I have not given that matter very much attention, but I think the public, more especially that section of the public which can be identified as responsible for accidents, must be brought up against the facts of the situation and be prepared, if necessary, to accept drastic legislation.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I do not propose to detain the House for more than four or five minutes. The Minister of Transport recommended us to analyse the statistics of accidents in the hope of breaking down the problem. I asked a Question in December last about accidents in which cyclists were involved to try and find out how far they occurred in the hours of darkness. I find that under fatal accidents one in four was after dark and in the case of serious accidents one in five. I therefore made inquiries as to what steps had been taken in other countries to try to prevent accidents after dark in which bicycles were involved.
I found in Austria that it has become compulsory for all bicycles to have reflectors not only on the back of the bicycles but on the pedals, for the simple reason that the movement of the pedal means that the light reflected in the reflector is very much more self-evident than when simply fastened on the back of the bicycle. I have here a very simple device which can be added to an existing

bicycle pedal. I have taken some trouble in connection with this matter. At this point I might add in parenthesis that I have no personal, financial or any other interest in this development, but I have discovered that it should be practicable to market it at somewhere between 2s. 6d. and 5s. a pair.
I have a considerable correspondence on the subject, but as I promised to be short I will not quote it at any length, and I have tried to discover what has been the effect of that compulsory regulation in Austria on the road accident situation there. I found that it was only introduced last June, so that there has not been time to get comparative figures, but the Embassy staff, through the Foreign Office here, were good enough to advise me that their experience is that they are far more easily spotted than the ordinary reflectors and can hardly fail to reduce the number of accidents. These reflectors can be fitted to other types of pedals as well.
I hope the Minister will take note of the fact that I have here other samples which I can show him. The only reason for not raising this matter with him sooner is that the result of my researches and quotations for such things only came in within the last few days, that is since we knew there was going to be a debate on the subject. I hope the Minister will take serious note of what I have said, and I hope that this debate will make the makers and the public realise the value to cyclists that this would be.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) said that he had no financial interest in this invention, but I think he is in danger of being offered a job as salesman by any firm which takes over the manufacture of these articles. I think every hon. Member was interested in his idea, and no doubt the Minister will look into this matter and perhaps adopt such a sensible suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman must have been struck by the remarkable unanimity in the House today, and I think I am voicing the general opinion of hon. Members when I express my appreciation of both speeches made from the two Front Benches this afternoon. This is the only speech which the right hon. Gentleman


has made since he took his present position that has received any appreciation from this side of the House. This afternoon we all felt that he made an excellent contribution to an important problem.

Mr. J. Hudson: Not quite all.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend thinks that there was one omission from the speech of the Minister, but I have no doubt that his point of view will be put before the House before we finish this debate.
I shall restrict most of my remarks to the question of road accidents. The Minister paid tribute to the fact that help had been given by the Press, but I think much more could be given. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) that it is important that the public should be shocked into realising the actual situation. It is not my intention to repeat the figures already given, but I think those given by my hon. Friend about the comparable figures of Korea and the casualties on the roads of this country ought to be widely known.
As I was saying earlier, the Press could do more than they are doing to bring this matter before the public. I do not know whether the Minister has any influence with the Press, but if he has I suggest that if, for a month, we could have as a main headline of all the daily papers on the front page, "War on the roads. Today's casualties "—so many accidents, so many deaths, so many injuries and, as the month went by, the cumulative total, people might be shocked into realising the seriousness of the problem.
We must remember that we have a joint responsibility for this problem, whether we are pedestrians, cyclists, motorists for pleasure or drivers of public or commercial vehicles, and we all have our part to play. When I taught my two boys to drive, the first thing I said was that they must be prepared for every other user of the road to do the wrong thing, because unless they were prepared for that, most likely there would be mistakes and accidents.
Reference has been made to pedestrians and to the suggestion by the Minister that there might be legislation. I shall not say much about pedestrians, but every-

body must have met the kind who will stroll slowly across the highway when a motorist approaches and looks at him as much as to say, "I have as much right on the road as you have." That is quite true. He has as much right on the road as any cyclist or motorist, but a good many pedestrians do not realise that their power to stop suddenly is much greater than that of a motorist. We also know the kind who never goes the shortest way across the road, but has a facility for finding the longest diagonal. Unless pedestrians begin to play their part and to co-operate, there will continue to be unnecessary accidents. That is the tragedy of this problem, that there are so many unnecessary accidents.
I believe that according to the law cyclists should not ride more than two abreast. I am not sure whether that ought not to be altered to single file. On some of our narrow roads, if two cyclists ride abreast, and a motorist is passing, with another one coming in the opposite direction, there is always the danger of an accident. It is incumbent upon the motorist to take the greatest care, because a good many cyclists are children and the alarmingly high rate of death is among children. As a country we cannot afford to waste so much young life. Not only in regard to cyclists is there a serious problem, but also in regard to young pedestrians.
As motorists we must realise the part we have to play. Reference has been made to the fact of cars being on the road that are not road worthy. It ought to be considered a crime to take on to the road a car which may be a danger to the general public. I do not know how it can be dealt with but it might be possible to say that cars must be examined by responsible garages at intervals and, when a motorist applies for a renewal of his licence, it might be possible for him to have to state when his car was last examined and declared roadworthy. There are other things which tend to create accidents where the motorists are at fault, and I think, we shall have to introduce regulations with regard to headlights because many of them are a danger.

Mr. Keenan: Nearly all of them are.

Mr. Blackburn: Anyone who has done any motoring knows that it is unnecessary to have the very strong headlights


which some cars have at present. Mention has been made of speed, and I think the Minister was correct when he said that speed was not necessarily wrong. What matters is speed in the wrong places. I am not satisfied about the present regulations for restricted and derestricted roads. I would take the power out of the hands of the Minister and would put it into the hands of people who know the district. I am not referring to county councils, but to the local authorities. They know the conditions, they know at first hand the amount of traffic along a road. I would also put into the hands of the local authorities the decision with regard to one-way streets. A local council is composed of responsible people. They have been elected, and they ought to be allowed to decide whether a street shall be made a oneway street.
Let me give an example. In a small town in my constituency—Dukinfield—the local council have for a long time been pressing that a certain street should be made a one-way street. There had been a serious accident there, and last year this was followed by the death of a child. The council made renewed application to have the street declared a oneway street but their application was turned down by the Ministry. Following this, I put a Question to the Minister to ask how many deaths we are to have on that road before we are allowed to make it a one-way street. Therefore, I say that on matters such as this I should be prepared to give greater power to the people on the spot.
There are certain signs that are not very helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth referred to the sign "Slow—major road ahead." I see no sense in such a sign. If it is a major road that is ahead, the only sign that ought to be there is "Halt—major road ahead." How it ever came about that there should be a "Slow" sign, goodness only knows.
I am not satisfied about the pedestrian crossings. The Minister seemed to indicate that the blinking, winking or twinkling lights at the zebra crossings are likely to prove a success. As a motorist, I do not like them. The danger is that the attention of the motorist is on the light rather than upon

the roadway where people may be crossing. I should much prefer to see a notice at the side of the road about 50 feet beforehand giving warning to a motorist that there is a zebra crossing ahead rather than have the lights on the actual crossing.
I suggest also that wherever practicable on the zebra crossings there ought to be an island in the middle of the road; and I should like to see in many of our towns far more islands in the centre of the roads. I have had it frequently stated to me by visitors to London that in spite of the amount of traffic here, they often find it much easier to cross the road in London than in Manchester, because in London there are more islands. If a pedestrian has only to watch the traffic in one direction and can stop in the middle of the road and look again before completing the crossing, this would be a great help.

Mr. L. M. Lever: My hon. Friend has referred to Manchester. There, on the very wide highways such as Oldham Road and Rochdale Road, the local authority has taken steps to provide refuges in the centre so that pedestrians can cross the road quite easily. Manchester, therefore, has taken, and is taking, every possible step to ensure the safety of those who use the roads.

Mr. Blackburn: I am sorry that I have touch Manchester's pride, but as I live near Manchester, and spend a good deal of time there, I can also claim to know Manchester. The alderman—I mean my hon. Friend—should take a walk down Deansgate, Manchester, on a busy day and see how many islands he can find in the middle of the road.

Mr. Lever: I do know my Manchester.

Mr. Ede: And when the road is slippery after rain.

Mr. Blackburn: I repeat, it would be a great help in many of our towns if we had more islands in the centre of the road.
Another important matter is that we should have more standardised street lighting on our main roads. Every motorist knows that he can tell when he is passing from one local authority area into another, because there is a sudden change in the street lighting. Some of it is exceptionally good, but some of it is


not as good as it ought to be. If we could have a standard of main road lighting below which no authority is allowed to go, this would be helpful in reducing the number of accidents.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is waiting for someone to refer to the question of drink. I do not hold the rigid views of my hon. Friend on this subject, but whatever our views we must all feel that something must be done about the motorist who goes on to the road when he is under the influence of drink. The only thing to do is to see that, automatically, he loses his licence.

Mr. Keenan: And his car.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not follow my hon. Friend as far as to say "and his car." I say that that driver should lose his licence. He could, perhaps, be given the right of appeal after two years. It is no use leaving the position as it is at present. The situation is serious and drastic steps must be taken.
But it is not only people who go on to the roads under the influence of drink who should lose their licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to an instance in which, I believe every hon. and right hon. Member would agree, the licence ought to have been taken from the man long before the case arose. A man who has committed 31 motoring offences is, obviously, not the sort of man who should be on the roads. The time has come when the magistrates must begin to impose more serious penalties, by which I mean more the taking away of the licence rather than increasing the amount of penalty, because to some people a£50 or£100 fine is no great loss.
I should like to add a few words on the matter of congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was anxious that the position of Lancashire, Cheshire and the North should be known as well as the serious position in London and other places. One of the things that we shall have to do to relieve the congestion of the roads is to reduce the number of heavy vehicles on the roads. Far too many goods are being carried on the

roads that could quite conveniently be taken by rail.
Unfortunately, the Minister has been responsible for an Act which will make it more difficult to have a co-ordinated and reasonable transport system. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will be easier."] Everyone will agree that there is a good deal of heavy traffic on the roads which is a danger to the roads and to other road users; and where this can be diverted to the railways, it ought to be so diverted.
On the subject of congestion in London and other big towns, I think the time is coming very soon when the private motorist will have to be banned from the main shopping centres. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It may sound a drastic remedy, but I am quite convinced that the time is coming when that will have to be considered. We have smokeless zones in the centres of our towns and soon we shall have to have zones in which there are no private cars. I know that a number of private motorists would not like that, but in the general interest it may have to be done. In any case, there are too many people using their cars to go into towns when they could conveniently use public transport.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Or walk.

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend says "walk," but most people have lost the idea that they can walk. It is no use deciding that this is a serious problem and not taking any steps to deal with it. We shall not deal with the problem in the centre of London merely by having new garages and parking places; the problem is too serious for that.
I return to the seriouness of the question of road accidents. I was sorry that the Minister was not present when I referred to the part which the Press could play in this matter. I hope he will read that part of my speech and, if he has any influence with the Press, try to prevail upon them to undertake a campaign such as I have suggested. Everyone realises that this is a very serious matter and for once both sides of the House are united, but speeches either here or anywhere else will not solve the problem. Action will have to be taken and I sincerely hope that as a result of the ideas put forward today that action will be taken.

6.52 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) in detail. I think the House very largely agrees with most of what he said, and I think that when he commented on the unanimity we had shown in the House he was doing nothing less than stating the truth.
The problem of road accidents is one of terrible importance; there is no question about that. I must again emphasise what other hon. Members have emphasised. The public have to be shocked into having something done. There is no other way of dealing with the problem. I feel that pedestrians and cyclists have a much greater respoasibility than that for which they are given credit in these matters. The wobbly cyclist, to my mind as an experienced motorist, is a terrible danger on the road.
The pedestrian—particularly the one to whom the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred who crosses the road looking as if he thinks, "I have as much right on the road as you have," may be adding to the list of famous last words, but he is then adding to the dangers of the roads. One, in England—not in Scotland—said to me the other day," When I get on to a zebra crossing I know quite well that the motorist will stop." That also might be added to the list of famous last words. I feel that the Archbishop of York, with the greatest respect to him—and we have a great respect for him—is a little wide of the mark in suggesting that we should confiscate the car that causes an accident. In that case we should also confiscate the bicycle, or part of it, or take off the leg of the pedestrian, to carry the suggestion to its logical conclusion in the most practical way.
Something more ought to be done in the matter of standardisation of the road signs in the country. Driving not long ago from Salisbury to Perth and missing London, I saw a good section of Great Britain and the variety of design of directions on the roads was something which was astonishing. It was bad enough for one who speaks English and lives in this country, but what it must be like for a foreign motorist I do not know. Although I do not like rules and regulations any more than most hon. Members on this

side of the House—and a great many hon. Members opposite—I feel that something more should be done in the way of standardisation of road signs.
To take one example, in the county of Perth the white line along the centre of the road is divided into sections—it is a dotted line until one comes to a bend where caution is required. Then it becomes a continuous line so that by day or night a motorist knows that he is coming to a dangerous bend because of the continuous line taking the place of the dotted line. Yet, in another county that does not happen, but something quite different. One is prepared for one type of sign and may meet another and that, in a flash of time, may be enough to cause an accident which could have been avoided. Therefore, standardisation is something which needs watching carefully.
I turn from road accidents to the question of road congestion. I feel no compunction whatever in referring to a place where traffic congestion is as bad as anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is the passage across the Forth at Queensferry. I beg the Minister to realise that I am not trying to be frivolous or to be a nuisance but I wish to emphasise a particular point in connection with this proposed bridge. First, it is not a matter which is the concern of Edinburgh and Fife only, as some seem to think. It is a great national highway of Great Britain and should be continuous and should have been made continuous long ago.
My right hon. Friend having mentioned the matter of tolls, I ask if he would consider the application of tolls to a possible construction of the Forth Road Bridge. Many people say that it is going backwards in development to return to tolls. There may be something in that. We do not like the idea of tolls, but in the United States of America a lot of bridges and great highways have tolls on them, and that is so in other countries. In this country we have the example of the Mersey Tunnel, which is a godsend to those who live in that part of the world. The tolls charged there are very modest.
I ask whether, in considering the possible construction of the Forth Road Bridge, the Minister has given enough attention to the money which could be received in return for that spent by instituting a system of tolls on the new


bridge. The cost of the bridge would not have to be borne entirely by the State, but would be borne partially by the local authorities. I think the Minister is underestimating the number of vehicles which would cross the bridge. He estimates the number at 3,000 a day. I think it would be considerably more as the fact that the road was open and there was a wide bridge there would undoubtedly encourage more traffic than may at first be thought probable.
Even the figure given by the Minister would mean more than one million vehicles a year, and that is a vast number. I think his figure errs on the cautious side and, for calculating purposes, I would take a figure of 1,100,000 a year. That represents more than one-third of the traffic now carried by the Mersey Tunnel and the small toll fees at the Mersey Tunnel bring in at present an average revenue of more than£600,000. For the same fees the Forth Road Bridge would bring in an annual revenue of£200,000 but those fees are far too small. For the Forth Road Bridge I think we could well afford, and the motorist would gladly afford, an increase in the fees charged on the Mersey Tunnel. Supposing they were doubled, they would still be far under the charges made by the ferry steamers at present conveying cars across.
To double the Mersey Tunnel fees in relation to the Forth Road Bridge would bring in revenue of well over£400,000 in the first year, and in the first 10 years at any rate it would bring it up, I am convinced, to£600,000. Surely, with that possible amount of traffic receipts coming in, and partial year-to-year construction which, as the Minister knows, amounts in the early years to a comparatively small cost, it is worth undertaking the work, when it is known that eventually there will be a handsome income which will go far to meet the capital cost.
I beg the Minister with all the seriousness at my command on behalf not only of Scotland as a whole, but of Great Britain, to see that something is done to link up this great highway through the centre of Great Britain. It would be an immense achievement. If the attention of the Chancellor was drawn to these figures of tolls he would see reason in this matter. I am convinced that the motoring public and indeed the cycling and walking public would willingly pay

double the Mersey fees in order to get this great highway constructed.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: The object of the Minister, and I am sure of all hon. Members, is to make an impact upon the public, not to shock anyone but to secure the co-operation of everyone in reducing the toll of the roads. When the Minister gave an analysis of the figures of road accidents in relation to their cause he did not refer to what was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) who said it was necessary that every vehicle should be roadworthy. The Minister may remember that in our last debate on this subject I brought up this matter, I thought rather forcibly, but I got no response from the Front Bench.
This afternoon the Minister has said he is to introduce a regulation that two brakes must be fitted to pedal cycles. There is little use in introducing such a regulation unless we see that the motor cycles, which, apparently, cause most of the accidents today, and the ordinary motor vehicles, have adequate brakes and lights. I saw a report recently in the Press of a sample survey made in one town, where 70 per cent. of the vehicles checked were declared not to be road-worthy. It is a shocking state of affairs that we should allow obsolete cars not only to be on the roads, but to be sold by dealers to people who have never driven cars.
The reply may be that it is difficult to enforce the existing law because there is not a big enough police force. I challenge that statement. On the last occasion we debated this subject I quoted from my own researches into the question of parking and what the police call obstruction. I gave examples of what happens and of the waste of time and manpower involved in members of the Metropolitan police hauling up hundreds of motorists before the London magistrates for parking offences.
It seems to me ridiculous that a motorist who has left his car in a Soho back street for 20 minutes should be hauled before the courts and the time of the police wasted, when what has occurred has not created any accident. That point seems to have been forgotten. I could be a little naughty about this and


say that, if we are so short of policemen for the enforcement of the law, it would be a very good thing if policemen were not hired out for private purposes on payment of fees. I suggest to the Minister that this matter might be inquired into. It would appear that someone has been slow in not using the subway beneath Kingsway, formerly used by the trams, as a parking place. I do not know whether that matter has been investigated.
The Minister said he was considering bringing out a simple manual of driving which could bear an official imprint, and would be understood by all potential drivers. That would be an admirable thing but he should include in it the elementary facts about what happens to a motor vehicle when you depress the clutch, or put on the brake or depress the accelerator. Quite a number of women drivers—1 include my wife—are unaware of what happens to the car when you push this button or the other and they get into quite a state——

Mr. J. Hudson: Not only women.

Mr. Orbach: No, not only women. Perhaps I may be excused if I appear to be a little anti-feminine in this case and say that it applies to both men and women. I must be careful about what I say or. otherwise, I shall find myself in difficulties when I get home. I hope that the Minister will consider including a short and not too technical explanation of what does happen to an internal combustion engine in those circumstances.
It would be churlish of me not to pay a tribute to the Ministry for the job with which they helped me during the last three weeks. The Minister said it would be a mistake for us to consider that arterial roads constructed for fast traffic and for getting goods from one place to another in the shortest time, should be derestricted because houses have been built along both sides of them. We cannot be blamed for that. Because there was a measure of planning to secure decent highways, and private enterprise did some ribbon development alongside those roads we cannot be blamed, and neither can local authorities, who, seeing houses springing up, provided amenities such as playing fields, schools and public libraries for the occupants.
I have had difficulty in trying to convince the Ministry experts that people killed on the North Circular Road in my area are not in some way to blame because they lived by the side of that road, and because a library and two schools and playing fields have been provided for them. The Ministry experts have not the proper attitude towards this question, but I would thank the Minister and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, for the speed with which work has been done to meet the dangerous situation which existed along the North Circular Road from Staples Corner to Neasden Circus.
This is a matter which I first brought up in the House some years ago. Three people had to be killed in five days before action was taken; but I am pleased to say that there has been action. I hope that, as a result of the Minister's assurance, we shall not have to wait six months before the three sets of traffic lights which have been promised are erected. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). There is some obstruction in the Ministry. I do not blame the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary or their predecessors for that obstruction. I believe there is obstruction because the experts have not made up their minds.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), the advice that we had about the shortage of material came from a trade association. I thought so at the time and I have checked up since. This was advice given by the trade association itself.

Mr. Orbach: At a meeting at which experts were present last week when the installation of lights on the North Circular Road was agreed to, I was told that it would take five or six months to erect them because, apparently, they are tailor made. I do not know what that means. One cannot get a suit tailor made nowadays, but apparently one can get tailor-made traffic lights.
I asked whether it was possible to have some emergency temporary traffic lights erected. After a time I got agreement from those responsible for policy that that should be done and then the technicians said that it was not possible. As an engineer I asked what engineering


difficulties were in the way. There was no response. We all pay tribute to the Minister for his administrative zeal. I hope that my plea will be satisfied and that we shall not have to arrange any more demonstrations along the North Circular Road, because last Sunday when I headed the march I got soaked to the skin, and that is not a very pleasant experience.

7.13 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I want to start by making a few remarks about the debate. My first comment arises from the claim made by an hon. Gentleman opposite about the unanimity with which we view these matters. That certainly is true when we consider the distant objective, but there is bound to be a great deal of controversy about the means which we should adopt. That controversy has already been revealed in the debate, and I think that my right hon. Friend welcomes it.
That being so, we are lucky that, comparatively speaking, the debate has been free from interruption. Obviously what my right hon. Friend wants are coherent speeches from hon. Members expressing what they really feel about these vast problems. It is of small consequence to indulge in a lot of interruption and to pursue small points to the end. I am glad that we are not doing that. Also, we have been comparatively free of constituency cases. This is a national problem and we must approach it from our own personal experience of national needs and requirements. I have a certain amount to say, and I hope that I can say it speedily and with proper brevity.
The other general comment I wish to make about the debate is that the Government are in full sympathy with the feelings of the House on this matter. The debate was arranged at short notice. Hon. Members in all quarters have shown that they are fully seized of the urgency and importance of these questions. The Government, who had not much notice of the debate and could not be expected to be prepared to deal with all aspects of it, have proved by the speech of my right hon. Friend that they are fully abreast of these matters especially of accidents and congestion problems. My right hon. Friend made what was regarded in all parts of the House as a

capital speech, with the exception that he did not produce at the end the monetary capital which we all require. In passing, I join with others in regretting the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary who for the past two years has given coherent and urgent thought to these problems and dealt with our personal cases in the most friendly and expeditious way.
My right hon. Friend asked for concrete suggestions. One matter mentioned was the spot check on road worthiness. That may have been instituted in Luton. They may have the organisation for that there and it may have been a success; but as a national matter it raises a vast question of administrative cost. How can we find the police, the authorities and the time and money to institute a thoroughly satisfactory scheme for investigating road worthiness? My right hon. Friend mentioned the proposals for legislation about the brakes on cycles. One can see how difficult that will be when it comes to looking into corners of back yards——

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Mr. Arthur Moyle(Oldbury and Halesowen) rose——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am sorry. I will not give way. I have refrained from interrupting for the reasons I gave and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same. It will be most difficult to find out where these cycles are and to put them through a proper system of investigation.
I wish to say a few words about driving tests. I should like to see a sort of age call-up instituted. It is time that those who have been driving for many years and who are now approaching the age of 60 or 70 should be given a driving test. That suggestion raises a host of administrative problems. I do not know whether they could be tackled satisfactorily. Everybody who wants to drive now and who is in the prime of life has to go through a driving test. Yet there are thousands, perhaps millions, of people, who drive and who have never taken a test. I have not myself and I dare say that a lot of other hon. Members have not. We ought to look at the date when tests were first introduced and see whether we cannot institute a call-up of a selected age group and put them through a driving test.
On the subject of headlights, I have one complaint which is shared by people like


Mr. Christopher Brunner and others. It is of headlights being turned on at night time in well-lit areas. It has been proved conclusively that the headlight shows up a vehicle against a dark background, whereas modern overhead lighting shows up a street and produces the vehicle as a dark object. The impact of those two lighting systems—of headlights and modern overhead lighting—cancel each other out completely. The result is confusion. There should be a regulation about that.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the speed limit. Let us have no attempt at further limiting speed. Let us avoid as far as possible applying the speed limit to the arterial roads which were originally designed, and ought to be maintained, for fast-moving traffic.
Now I enter a controversial field in which I hope to tread rather warily. I refer to what the Archbishop of York said about the danger of speed as such. This has a relation to the problem of what might be called the docile queue lover. It is a characteristic of our people. The English are in some respects rather curious. In the last few years, during and since the war, we have developed a kind of queue mindedness, a kind of "After you, Sir" attitude.
What we get on the roads today are very large numbers of people who are so cautious in their driving that they dare not pass anything, and, when they come up behind a large bus or a lorry, which is by law restricted to a certain speed, they all bunch up nicely behind it and pack themselves up tight, so that nobody else can attempt to pass. If we then get somebody coming up the road with a decent car—[Interruption.] Yes, a decent car which is also safe, and which can pass at speed, or it may be the driver of a modern van taking goods at speed from one works to another, he cannot pass. He is so absolutely maddened by this congested mass of vehicles that he is forced into the position of being a road hog.
There is the question—who is the road hog? Is it those people who have forced themselves into this close mass of drivers pursuing safety first as an end in itself, or it is the person who has a good vehicle, who has driven for many years, and who, perhaps, is compelled by his firm to reach

a certain point at a certain time, who is the road hog? I find that very difficult to answer.
We see the same problem again on these pedestrian crossings. We see drivers approach a crossing with great timidity, looking from side to side to see if anything is coming. Then, there is a person on the crossing, and he steps forth with one foot and then withdraws his foot, and, gradually, through this business of courtesy and "After you," and "Let me be quite sure I am on the right side," we produce congestion on the crossing itself.
We all get annoyed as drivers when we see the old gentleman who raises his stick, knows his rights and marches smartly across the crossing. We feel like running him down because he does that. But he is on the right side of the law. He is claiming his just rights and behaving as he should behave, according to the law. I have a feeling that, if people not only drove but also marched on the roads, knowing the law and showing that they know the law, there would be very much less trouble than there is today. I would be the last to say that we should end courtesy on the road, but courtesy carried to extreme lengths produces congestion in itself, and I defy anybody to controvert that statement.

Mr. Ede: Noblesse oblige.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I now come to this question of accidents and congestion, particularly in London and the suburbs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said he was opposed to underground garages. I agree with him. They are an immensely expensive project, and I think that we can do things far more useful than that.
May I start here with a very minor suggestion? When the traffic light goes green, the chances are that a vehicle moves across the crossing, even though the driver knows that he will jam the crossing when he gets there. It ought to be part of the Highway Code—and part of the courtesy on the road movement, in its proper sense—that one ought not to move, even on a green light, unless one knows that there is space on the opposite side of the crossing into which the vehicle can go. Time and again, buses and cars on heavily congested crossings simply go on moving on the green light, knowing that they can pack the crossing


and jam up the road, and that is just what they do. I would make that part of the Highway Code.
Now, a suggestion in regard to a comparatively minor device which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will secure the chance to explain, and which concerns the parking meter. It has been tried in the United States and also in Bâsle in Switzerland, and it is a great success. The object is to produce a parking meter which charges the sort of economic price which induces people not to park their cars where the parking meter is. If hon. Members do not understand that I will leave them to my hon. Friend.
As for parking places in general, and these not only affect the ordinary motor and motorist but also London Transport buses, I think we should get large parking areas, not garages necessarily, but large parking areas at positions roughly one-third and two-thirds of the distance across London, on the outer ring. People would then come in from outside, park their cars for the day in these places, and use London Transport for the rest of their journey to work. If London Transport did that in the case of their own vehicles, we should not have this congestion, with buses moving at two miles an hour and more or less empty in the middle of the day.
Now I come to my major suggestions for dealing with this problem, and first I take the question of roundabouts. I would urge hon. Members to visit the fascinating map room at Scotland Yard which shows quite conclusively that the traffic light is a superior system of controlling traffic to that of the minor roundabouts, and saves accidents. One hon. Gentleman mentioned the Neasden roundabout, which is a failure, and is, I understand, to be removed. All roundabouts that are comparatively small and on roadways where the intersections are simple and straightforward are more or less a failure. There is more congestion there than there is with traffic lights.
It is only in the cases where we get a large roundabout, such as in Parliament Square and such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) himself devised for the Festival of Britain at the other side of Waterloo Bridge, where the traffic stream uses several roads, that it is a

success. We must have a large enough area to make the roundabout idea a success. Where that is not the case, I suggest that we ought to remove the roundabouts and substitute traffic lights.
I cannot understand why it is that, whereas the French, who suffered so much in the war, have been successful in introducing these "fly-unders" on the roads, and particularly on the roads leading out of Paris, we cannot do the same thing. I hope we shall begin to spend some money, and it is with the spending of money that the last part of what I want to say is concerned. I hope we shall see some money spent on these "fly-unders" at intersections of arterial roads leaving London with the circular roads. What has happened to the Abercrombie inner ring road plan? A case was fully made out in that Report, and it was calculated that it would remove up to 30 per cent. of the traffic from the central area of London.
I should like to see something done about this inner ring road system. One hon. Gentleman has already referred to the last road having been built at Kingsway in 1905. It is a shocking thing—I know we have been through two world wars—but one would have thought that we would have been able to spend some money on reconstruction of the roads. I would widen the roads on the inner London ring and would demolish houses where we have to do so. I would pay adequate compensation, and would put an end to this long drawn out system of local public inquiries, which always leads people into litigation. If we did what the Americans and the French do, and gave handsome compensation, we should never have anything like the opposition there is. It all comes back in the end.
For the finer class of buildings, I would do what has been suggested, such as colonnading, and even attempt what the poor French have been able to do, namely, physically to move back a beautiful building a distance of a few feet—roll it back on rollers by hand, it may be. The building in question was the famous Municipal Theatre at Amiens. That must have been a very interesting architectural operation.
I now come to the new roads which I think must be built. The need for new


roads is absolutely compelling. In a debate last year I gave the figures of Government expenditure on civilian services both after and before the war. Every service except the roads has been enlarged four or five times, and an hon. Member said at that time how right that was. I fully agreed with him. The roads are the Cinderella of transport, and they are not being allowed to take their place besides these other services.
Before the war, we spent£60 million a year on roads while today we are spending£80 million. That means, taking into consideration the depreciation which has taken place in the value of money, that we are now only spending three quarters of what we spent before the war in real terms. As an hon. Member pointed out, we have the highest vehicle density per mile in the world and hold only fourth place in the percentage of the national income spent per vehicle per 1,000 miles of road.
I maintain that the time has arrived when large-scale expenditure is required, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who spoke on behalf of the Labour Party, could not commit his party to a figure in respect of what it is necessary to spend next year. I hope that there was no political intent in that, and that he was not trying to get the Government to state a figure so that it could be criticised as either inadequate or over-adequate. This is far too serious a matter for hon. Members opposite not to be fully frank with their party, with the House and with the country, and to say what they believe is an adequate sum to spend.
I am going to put in a personal plea which may not be shared by my hon. Friends on this side of the House for the spending of£125 million more than we are spending now in the next two years—£50 million next year and£75 million in 1954–55, that£75 million to be held for a number of years until we see where we are getting. After all, this sum is only one-twentieth of the rearmament programme, and let us hope that, as a result of peace in Korea and the new accommodating mood of certain nations in the world, it may be possible to make some slight reduction in that programme. If the£1,600 million we are spending on rearmament could be

reduced by, say,£300 million it would mean taking only a small bite out of that for what I want and the rest would be there to be used for the other great services which we favour. Indeed, there is a high strategic content in the provision of new roads.
Just a word or two about the financing of such a programme. I think that the British Road Federation, who are a very good pressure group, do good service in keeping us up to the mark, but I think they have overstepped the limit a little, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, in saying that whereas we take£330 million from the roads we only spend£80 million on them. If that principle is applied to whisky, beer, cigarettes, betting and football pools it makes absolute nonsense. Transport must bear its fair share of taxation.
What is holding up the provision of capital? It is the Capital Investment Programme Committee of the Treasury. It is a secret device of Government which this House neither now nor under the last regime has ever discussed or looked at. Of all Government devices it is the only one subject to no democratic procedures. But that is an issue for a Finance Committee and I will not go into it now. That is what has been holding up matters till now, and rightly so, but now is the moment for my right hon. Friend to make an attack upon it. I am sure he will be able to do so with the support of this House and the country.
My hon. Friends are interested, and rightly interested, in the utmost economy in public services, and I am all for economy in those Departments where private interests can take up the slack, but not in this matter of roads. In roads, the State and the local authorities must spend because there is nobody else who can spend. Therefore, in some shape or form the State and the taxpayer must provide the money.
As I do not wish to take up any more time, I will skip the point about the toll roads suggestion and leave that for another occasion. I prefer a loan operation and not one taken on the Budget "below the line," as we are doing for housing. I prefer a definite loan created for the roads. We need an overhaul of road finance.
This hyper-orthodoxy of capital formation from current earnings, which is


exactly what happens now under the Estimates for roads has really reached the limit. Many a man has borrowed long-term capital and spent it on riotous living, and no doubt those who do so go to their graves sooner than maybe. It was left to the good Mr. Gladstone, I believe, to require the nation to draw from their weekly pay packets in order to create State assets which would last for a 100 years. That is a£wise and penny foolish policy, and no other private or semi-State organisation operates on that basis. This doctrine not only keeps taxation unnecessarily high, but is a positive bar to the essential capital investment necessary to keep British productivity in the State sector abreast of other countries.
I claim that just as the individual can make the rake's progress by spending his capital, so from the nation's point of view one can make it the other way round. I do not want this nation to go to an untimely grave.
I should like to establish a sort of priority for the capital sum I have mentioned. I suggested£50 million for next year, and I would spend it in this way. I would spend£25 million on accident black spots,£20 million on completing road schemes suspended in 1939, and£10 million on making a start with the special schemes so dear to the hearts of some hon. Members, such as the Purfleet Tunnel, the Forth Road, the Birmingham—Bristol motor way and the Preston bypass.
We have made tremendous progress since the war in every Department except the roads. My right hon. Friend established a great reputation in the early months of this year in the course of the passage through this House of the Transport Bill. I believe that he can fortify and embellish that reputation if he makes a great stand on behalf of what seems to be the united opinion of this House and the country for worthwhile expenditure upon the roads.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I listened, as I always do, with very great interest to the contribution which has just been made to this debate by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He always brings a certain freshness and colour to our debates, but, quite frankly, I find it exceed-

ingly difficult to agree with him in his approach to this general question of the roads, both in regard to maintenance, construction and accidents. Of course, so far as I am concerned, the first priority must be the terrible problem of accidents on the roads.
However, I think that the noble Lord is a first-class lieutenant to the Minister of Transport, who, I thought, gave us an able survey of the problems affecting his Department, although I thought that the remedies he suggested were anaemic and puny. For example, he spoke about the Lancashire exercise which he described as a "blitz" on road accidents. He spoke about the special effort that was made by mobile police patrols which had a decisive effect upon the scale of accidents, but he made no further reference to it. He spoke, I thought, rather weakly, about the spot checking of motor vehicles. May I encourage him to go further in that field?
The noble Lord said that there were not enough police to deal with the problem of traffic and he asked where were we to recruit the necessary number of men to deal with the spot checking of road vehicles. I will give him the answer, and I hope that the Minister will consider it as well. The Minister says, "I will make it legally obligatory upon the pedal cyclist to have his machine fitted with two brakes." It is easy to deal with pedal cyclists. They do not count for much in society.

Mr. Ede: Do they not?

Mr. Moyle: No, not in the opinion of the big interests. I will tell my right hon. Friend why. Why does the Minister not apply the same principle to the motorist? What is the difficulty of making it legally obligatory upon a motorist to have his car serviced not less frequently than every six months, and that he should have to be provided with a certificate from the garage engineer saying that the vehicle is road worthy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. When I said that the bicycle must have efficient brakes I only said that in future it must have what cars now must have. He is now proposing a new point, compulsory examination of cars periodically. That is a different matter. I am not putting a burden upon the cyclist that is not on the motorist.

Mr. Moyle: I shall begin to think that the Ministry of Transport are waking up to the toll on the roads when they deal as effectively with the motorist as they are forced to deal with the pedal cyclist. Why should it not be legally obligatory upon every motorist to have a vehicle that, in the opinion of an expert engineer, is roadworthy? That is the first point.
My second observation is that the Minister is attempting to deflate the claims made for the introduction of the speed limit, and he was assisted very effectively by the noble Lord. I am totally unconvinced by the submissions of the Minister about the ineffectiveness of introducing the speed limit. It is monstrous that no speed limit is imposed upon bypass roads which go through built-up areas. It is monstrous that there is no speed limit in many of the villages which have main traffic roads going right through.
The Minister spoke about the percentage of accidents in built-up areas, and I concluded that that was his main argument against the application of the speed limit. There are, of course, more accidents in the built-up areas, for the simple reason that there are more people in the built-up areas. I cannot see that the evidence that the Minister adduced is in any way a compelling argument against the claim that I made for the introduction of the speed limit in every village, along a main road or on any bypass road which has housing accommodation by the roadside.
I know the problem of the speed limit when we discuss it with the motorist, because it is natural for the motorist to maintain that the speed limit will not in any way reduce accidents. I suggest to the Minister that the time has come for the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with this matter and to establish the facts, make recommendations for the consideration of the Government of the day and Parliament, and, finally, educate the public.
I am glad that the Home Office have decided to increase the number of police patrols and I repeat the plea which I made in the last debate on this question. Why do the Government not take similar action in connection with the patrol of traffic particularly over the week-end as has been taken in connection with civil Defence? Why not recruit a special corps

of people who are competent to patrol traffic, and relieve policemen for other duties?
It is an extraneous obligation on the police who spend so much time taking notes, examining accidents and reporting to their superiors and perhaps having to appear in a police court to give evidence against a defendant. Of much of that work they could be relieved if only the public were brought to the aid of the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office through a special corps of men and women recruited, subject to certain tests, to assist the police, particularly over week-ends and holiday periods, to patrol and control our traffic on the roads. I am sure that that would be a material contribution to a reduction of the accidents on the roads.
I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the suggestions which I have made, particularly with reference to the Royal Commission and the special corps of people recruited to assist the police in the control of road traffic.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: Perhaps one of the happiest things that has been said in this debate is that the local authorities have made the best possible use of the limited amount of money at their disposal. I am sure that that is true, and that there is not a local authority in the land that would not wish to have more money for both maintenance and capital investment in the roads under their jurisdiction.
We have heard some very serious figures today about the increase in the number of motor vehicles in the country. We were told for instance, that there has been an increase from 2 million to 4·7 million vehicles since the war, and the Minister himself gave the figures of the number of new vehicles that have been registered in the first three months of this year, each of which monthly registrations is greater than the whole of the registrations last year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must correct that. I was in error in saying that, and I have already corrected it. I inadvertently gave the monthly average for last year as the total for the whole of last year. There has been a rise, but nothing like as spectacular as my original statement suggested.

Mr. Cole: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction, but the principle obtains that the figures are mounting year by year, though not at such an astronomical rate as I thought from what my right hon. Friend said. The time is coming when we must remember the old adage about the irresistible force, which is the number of motor cars going around the country, meeting the immovable object, which is the roads. The time is coming when we shall have to do something about it. I would endorse what my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, and his plea that we should look at this thing in a big way in getting down to the problem. The time is past when we can deal with it on a piecemeal basis, and I hope that the Korean peace and other things will allow us to find more money for this purpose, when, I am sure, it can be accomplished.
We must remember that we in this country depend on the efficiency and on the expansion of our industry, and in particular on our exports abroad. It is impossible to compute—though I think all hon. Members will agree that it is very large—the loss of internal finance and the loss of orders abroad through time lost because of the inefficient road communications at present. What we need is not only the rehabilitation of existing roads but, in many places, the replanning of them, and new roads, trunk and otherwise, to connect our towns.
The road system of these islands lags far behind our necessities in maintaining our industrial position in the world. I myself led a deputation from my constituency last year to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a scheme that has been on ice for many years, a scheme for a major road linking two towns, which would be for the convenience and the safety of the travellers between them. That is only one of many schemes left on ice for lack of finance.
I would say a word about congestion. Nobody going around towns such as London or Manchester or Birmingham, for instance, can be anything but shocked that in this day and age, in an up-to-date, modern country, we have such an archaic state of affairs in which all the vehicles converge on one point in the town. Let anyone, stand in the centre square of a

town, be it London or Manchester or Birmingham or Glasgow, at a busy time and he will see for himself how traffic congestion and insufficient communications defeat us in our attempt to obtain maximum production, which we are always seeking. Some day somebody must do something about it.
I do not know whether the solution lies in redirection of the traffic or in bypass roads, but the present congestion, with the present rate of increase of the number of new vehicles is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to go on. I hope that those responsible for the town planning of our new developments are not losing sight of the fact that motorists go to the centre of a town where are the theatres and the shops, and so on. That should be borne in mind in the planning of delivery roads and the places where vehicles may be expected to collect.
I come to the question of accidents and the loss of life on the roads. The great trouble, of course, is to convey to anyone, a Member of Parliament or anyone else exactly what these figures of road accidents really mean. In terms of human life we have been given today the comparison of the losses on the roads to the losses in Korea, but tell anyone that there is this comparison and his reaction will probably be one of surprise that there were so few casualties in Korea. We have to shock the people into realising what exactly is happening on the roads. As it is, unless one of these road fatalities comes to one's own doorstep or involves a member of one's own family, to the majority of people an accident is just another paragraph in the paper. That is one reason why we are not making faster progress towards solving the problem.
Rospa House, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, are dealing with this problem, as those who have been there know, and hon. Members who have been there may have seen one of their booklets on two early pages of which is a graphic indication of what the loss of life means. It asks the reader to imagine a town with a population of over 160,000—equal to Bolton, for instance. Imagine that every man, woman and child in that town was killed or injured in a year. The whole population of a town that size is killed or injured on the roads of this country in a single year. Take the case of a small town such as Rye or


Dartmouth, with a population of around 5,000. Imagine the whole of the population of that town killed on the roads in a year.
Then imagine 1,000 children at a Saturday morning cinema matinee—1,000 children all in one place. Suppose that something were to happen—which heaven forbid—so that the whole of those 1,000 children were killed. That would be something so terrible it would go down into history and never be expunged from our records Yet just that number of children, 1,000, die on the roads every year. By such imaginative publications as this and by other means this institution is trying to demonstrate to the people what these figures of road casualties mean. Otherwise they mean so little unless someone next door or one's own child or someone else known to one suffers in an accident.
Despite all the rules and regulations, all the zebra crossings, all the reflectors-pedestrians, motorists, and motor-cyclists must have inculcated into them good habits. We have seen this process applied in other directions. Years ago, there was not so much attention paid to the cleanliness of food, or to other things important to our physical health. Gradually, people have been taught how these things matter in the prolongation of our life. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that by a campaign—it will take quite a time—we must have continuous education to persuade people to do the right things on the roads, so that they gradually form good habits and wise ways in using the roads. Then and only then shall we have a diminution of the fatality records.
We have posters already. It has been suggested that we should have many more. I think that is right, but I do not think that that is enough. It is not enough to put a slogan on a poster. A slogan on a poster is a happy way to teach people to remember something, but we ought also to explain the reason behind the slogan—why it is a good idea to wait at a zebra crossing because so and so may or may not happen. Slogans are not enough; we must have slogans which give reasons. I am sure that the real answer to this problem is to stop people carrying out bad habits on the roads by trying to make them automatically do the right thing.
We all know that the large majority of accidents are due to the person who does something on the spur of the moment, which, in quietness of mind, he would not dream of doing. He darts across the road in front of a bus or something like that, and it is very necessary that we should inculcate habits into people so that they do not do that sort of thing. Then we shall stop people from losing their lives. But this is a process of making the minds of the public keep pace with the changing conditions on the roads, and making them adopt habits which are in accord with those changing conditions. The Minister suggested a new manual for drivers. I think that there should be something like that to try to explain the position to pedestrians, with examples as to why pedestrians should take care, and that it should be disseminated among the population.
I suggest that a good way to do this, if we should be unfortunate enough to have ration books next year, would be to have one of these leaflets enclosed in every ration book issued at the Food offices in 1954. If that is not possible—and we shall all be glad if ration books can be done away with—a leaflet might be issued with driving licences throughout the year. I particularly want to get it to the pedestrian, and driving licences would not in every case bring it to the notice of the pedestrian. I want the body of people who, as a whole, are victims of accidents when actually pedestrians, to have this leaflet and information.
I would make a further point. Many people are both motorists and pedestrians at one time or another. I remain firmly of the opinion, having been a motorist for 20 years and a pedestrian for nearly 43 of my 44 years, that a motorist when he is driving a car is a motorist and not a pedestrian and when a pedestrian is walking, although he owns a car, he is a pedestrian and not a motorist.
I remain unconvinced by those people who tell me that every person who can drive a car understands the point of view of the pedestrian. I do not believe that that is true. My experience is that once one sits in a motor car one is a motorist and, although aware of pedestrians, one is not in the mind of a pedestrian. The same applies when one is a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, although one may at another time be a driver of a car.
I think that we should extend the practice, which took place some years before the war, of showing films produced by the Crown Film Unit in cinemas, with one or two pithy examples of things that should and should not be done on the roads. The cinemas have still a fair audience and it would be a very useful and cheap way of showing people what happens on the roads. From what I know about cinemas at the present time, a number of advertisements are shown by local traders, and I do not think that any audience would object to a film lasting four or five minutes dealing with something as important as the safety of their own lives. I should like to make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend that he might extend that process and make it part of his campaign for getting this matter into the minds of the public.
As I said at the beginning of my speech this is a continual process. I do not think that we can look for any revolutionary method of solving this problem. I do not think that we can wait for anything wonderfully new, which nobody has ever thought of, to try to save people's lives. I think it is a question of extending, adapting and improving those methods which we are already thinking about, and all the time hoping that someone will have a new idea. Above everything else, the fact remains that if we want to save people's lives we must inculcate into them habits which make them avoid doing the things which put their lives in jeopardy.

8.5 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I would agree with what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has said, that the necessity of getting the seriousness of the situation over to the general public, in which we include ourselves, is the outstanding problem.
Before I came to the House today I was looking at a report in a newspaper which gave the casualty figures of our men in Korea as just over 700 killed, and I compared those figures with the road casualty figures, not for one year but just for the month of June. I saw that the casualty figures in road accidents in this country for that month was 407 killed or mortally injured. In other words, in one month we had nearly half the fatal casualties in this country that we had during the whole of the war in

Korea. I do not profess to have any new suggestion as to how we can get that over to the people of this country, but I am quite convinced that is a fact which is not generally realised.
I should like first to deal with the problem of congestion. I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that this is certainly not the time to raise constituency problems. We are trying to look at this from the national viewpoint. But I would say that cities the size of Coventry have a similar problem on this matter of congestion. We in Coventry make motor cars. I do not know whether that means that the proportion of cars owned by the population there is larger than anywhere else in the country, but it certainly is very large. I should like to bring to the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, particularly as he is connected with the Home Office, and police affairs though the Metropolitan Police, the problem concerning the police that we have there.
In many of our provincial cities this problem of congestion arises from three chief factors. First, there is the severe congestion of people starting work and leaving work at the factories, particularly where, as it happens in our case, the workpeople have to go across the centre of the city to and from work. This necessitates large numbers of police being on duty to get the traffic moving and to keep the roads clear for getting people to and from work.
The second problem is that which occurs on Saturdays. We have in Coventry and elsewhere a five-day week, and that means that in many of our provincial cities we have people coming into shop on Saturdays not only from the city but from the surrounding neighbourhood. I find that in many provincial cities where I have been there are many more pedestrians coming into shop on a Saturday, than on other days. Not only do they fill the pavements but they overflow into the roads and it is impossible for the buses to keep moving. I would again point out to the Joint Under-Secretary of State that that involves the use of large numbers of police to keep the traffic moving.
Lastly, relating to congestion, is this matter of pedestrian crossings. Our provincial cities have a good number and I


think that they are well used. But I find, particularly in Coventry, that the traffic is brought to a standstill by people using the pedestrian crossings. With us, policemen and policewomen have to be employed at nearly all these pedestrian crossings to keep the traffic moving. I would point out, and I think that perhaps the House would agree, that this congestion is caused in many of our provincial cities chiefly through the city centres being used as stations by buses coming in to put down and pick up passengers. I suggest that it would be to the advantage of all cities where buses are massed round the centre of a square in that city if such traffic had to make use of an inner ring road and was not allowed to come into the centre of the city. That would prevent accidents, save the time of the police, save people's tempers and enable us to get on more quickly.
Coming to actual road accidents, if a murder is committed there is an immediate outcry for the person responsible to be discovered. In the face of that, it seems quite incredible that although thousands of people may be killed on our roads, it is regarded very much as a matter of course. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South. People have now become so accustomed to accidents—I do not except hon. Members from this—that, unless the position is actually brought home to them, they are regarded just as one of those things.
We are all concerned about what can be done. The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute to the Press and, in particular, to the "News Chronicle" for the campaign which has been carried on recently. I should like to add my tribute. Many other hon. Members wish to speak, and so I shall not recapitulate what the Minister has said, but it seems to me that there are two things which will help to reduce the toll of accidents. First, all the experts dealing with the matter should know the type of person who is most likely to become a road casualty.
Hon. Members who have read the "News Chronicle" this week will have seen that that newspaper gave us actual age groups for the children and for the old people. Therefore, I suggest that most of the people who are dealing with

traffic accidents in our cities know the age group or the types of person most likely to become casualties. Secondly, those of us who have been to local police stations to inquire about the matter know that it is not difficult to find out where accidents are most likely to occur. We have all seen road maps with the black spots marked on them. If these two matters are dealt with, we shall be some way towards providing a solution to the problem. And I believe this is being done.
But, in spite of this, we shall get nowhere unless, somehow or other, the matter can be got over to the people. I believe that the films, the radio and the Press should each play their part. Somehow we must bring home to everyone the fact that, if this slaughter continues at the present rate, one person in every three will become a casualty at least once in a normal lifetime. I seem to remember some years ago a poster of a widow with the caption "Keep death off the roads." There was a great outcry because many people said it was dreadful. I do not believe that it matters any longer how horrifying or dreadful the propaganda is if it has some effect upon us. Anything that we can devise to bring home to people how very serious the problem is should be used. If any of us are horrified, then that is proof that the propaganda is making an impression. Parliament should consider certain points.
First we ought to consider making the use of pedestrian crossings compulsory. I agree with the Minister about this. Although it may not be a popular thing to say, I believe we must impose penalties upon people who do not use pedestrian crossings. Secondly, we should consider the construction of subways at busy central intersections. Thirdly, we must have a long-term policy for redesigning our roads. I believe the whole House agrees with that. Fourthly, we must provide adequate car parks in the neighbourhood of shopping centres, for both shoppers and shopkeepers. On this matter, I differ from some hon. Members; I believe that car parks may have to be underground as well as on the surface. We must also consider the prohibition of parking in central streets and the provision of bus stations on an inner perimeter, where possible, in order to keep buses off the central streets.
There is another small matter which is not necessarily local, but I mention it because the chief constable of Coventry referred to it. He suggests that there should be school wardens at schools sited in streets which were once minor roads but have now become major roads through build up and congestion.
As an ordinary pedestrian and frequently when about to cross a road at traffic signals, I have found it impossible to see the colour of the lights. These lights face the vehicular traffic, not the pedestrian. This afternoon the Minister said that he was authorising an increase of£345,000 in expenditure on traffic lights this year. Could not more "Cross now" signals be installed at traffic lights? Often, as I have pointed out, pedestrians cannot see the colour of the traffic lights and it would make it much easier for them if in most places there were "Cross now" and "Do not cross" signs. I do not know how many of these signs there are at traffic lights, but, for example, those in Trafalgar Square are very useful.
Drivers in general should be more careful about observing the amber light. We have all experienced the driver coming along the road and then, thinking the lights are just about to change, accelerating to cross before they alter. We then get the screeching of brakes and the driver pulls up half-way over the pedestrian crossing, or else there is an accident.
Some months ago I asked the Minister if it would be possible to arrange for the inspection of secondhand cars when these are sold. I suggested that the A.A. or the R.A.C. might undertake the task. Many men working in garages in Coventry have told me that some secondhand cars which are for sale are death traps and should not be allowed on the roads. I hope that this matter will be looked into. Car brakes should certainly be inspected more often.
One further point in conclusion. Of the young cyclists killed on the roads in 1950, 41 per cent. died because they ran into something and 10 per cent. because they fell off their machines. Bearing this in mind I hope the House will give publicity to the course organised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which was mentioned by the Minister. The Society has a first-class cycling course, and so far only 40,000

children have taken advantage of it. The Minister said that the Society was prepared to extend the scheme if there was local demand, and I hope that headmasters and Members of Parliament will do their best to produce that demand.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Two thoughts occur to me as a result of what has been said during the course of this debate. First, while I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) and hon. Members opposite about the need to explain to the general public what really are the hazards of the roads, we must not allow ourselves to create such an attitude of mind among people that the terrors of the road become overwhelming and they are afraid to go about their normal business. We must keep a sense of proportion about the matter.
Secondly, the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) spoke about the desirability of keeping buses from the centre of cities and making them decant their passengers on an outer ring from which people would make their way on foot to the city centre. It has been suggested that private cars should be prohibited from entering the central areas of cities, and some such proposal was discussed in connection with the re-planning proposed for my own city after the war. I have a feeling that we may create conditions in which the business and commercial centres of our cities will be starved of the flow of life which vehicles and passengers represent if we make it difficult for people to reach the centre of cities and inconvenient for them to do their business when they get there.
I believe that the motorist who takes his car or commercial vehicle into the centre of a city which he knows to be congested, and which will present him with difficulties in going about his business, has worked out whether it is worth while facing those difficulties or not. The motorist coming to London who has no need to have his car in the centre of the City does not bring it here.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Would the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that it is not the motor car in London which is the difficulty so much as


the heavy goods vehicle with a trailer behind which must come into the city?

Mr. Thompson: Exactly the same conditions apply. The driver of the heavy goods vehicle or his employer have taken into account what are the problems arising from such action and whether it is worth while to go into the centre of the city. If they do not have to go, they must accept the consequences of their action.
This problem of road accidents, fatalities, human misery and suffering, destruction of families and decimation almost of our child population which is going on on the roads is a most serious thing. I quite agree that this House, the local authorities and other interested organisations ought to face up to it as a major problem. I do not belittle it in any way.
No driver going on to the roads goes on to the roads intending to have an accident. No driver who goes on to the roads does so intending to be no less careful than he thinks his own well-being and his own safe arrival require him to be. No pedestrian going on to the road does so with the idea of behaving in a manner that would be likely to lead him into any trouble whatsoever. No highway authority, local authority, county council or the Ministry of Transport is ignorant of this problem in all its facets, and the consequences of what is happening, but despite all this and the awareness and consciousness of this immense problem, the appalling accident figures continue to mount.
What have we done in the last 20 or 30 years? We have been nibbling at the fringe of the problem. We have pedestrian crossings, traffic islands, dual carriageways and a most fantastic paraphernalia of road signs, which have grown to such an extent that the average motorist does not know half the signs by which he is supposed to be guided. One of my hon. Friends put the matter admirably, clearly and with great force when he said that if an invading force in these islands, by sniping and ambushing, were to inflict a quarter of a million casualties on our people it is not difficult to imagine the kind of minute that would be sent from the Prime Minister to whatever Departmental Minister was responsible.
It would be headed "Action this day" or something to that effect, and I imagine that the action required from my right hon. Friend would be very drastic indeed.
If ordinary measures have failed and 50 million are still to go on living in these islands, then it seems to me that the House ought to direct its attention to some of the possible extraordinary measures which we should take into account. I do not want to make a speech which would deprive the House of hearing from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). I do not go as far as he does in the views he holds about the liquor trade and liquor consumption. But I agree with what I think he would say about the motorist who goes on to the road with his judgment and capacity impaired as a result of having taken alcohol.
Such a motorist ought to be treated as a very special kind of offender. If he does not have an accident, nevertheless he invites the inevitable consequences of the action he took before he set out with his motor car, and it seems to me that the penalties to which he is subjected today are comparatively trifling, bearing in mind the particular offence of which he has been guilty. He ought to be forbidden to use the Queen's highway for five years, 10 years or any other seemingly extravagant period that the House might deem appropriate.
What a queer kind of people we are. While we in this House are aware of this problem and of the relationship between intoxicating liquor and road accidents, we are actually under the powers conferred by the Town and Country Planning Act insisting that every new public house that is built must have a bigger and better car park than the old public house. It seems to me that we are facing the problem without any very really serious approach as to what will follow from such actions. It would not be going too far in this House to insist that a publican who serves a motorist should be treated the same as a publican who serves a minor.
Suggestions have been made tonight about what might be done with the driver who drives a car which is inefficient. Apparently there are great difficulties about having cars inspected but I do not see any such difficulties at all. It ought


to be the duty of a garage proprietor if, in the course of his business, he handles a car which is inefficient or in which he knows there are serious defects, that he should report that matter to the police. He should warn the motorist, which is natural if he has his eye on his business, that he is about to take this action. The responsibility will then be firmly and squarely where it belongs, namely, in the hands of the police.
If a car is found to be in an inefficient condition and it has been in the hands of a garage—cars are frequently in the hands of some garage or another—and the garage proprietor has not done his duty, then he should be debarred from trading. We are facing a serious situation. At present, a motorist is required to have his car insured. He can have an inefficient car insured and the insurance company carries the responsibility this far, that if they have issued an insurance policy for an inefficient motor car and that car is involved in an accident the insurance company pays out. It is quite a serious matter, but not serious enough in relation to the effect on other members of our community who may be injured by the inefficient motor car. The insurance company should be required by law not to issue an insurance certificate for a car that is less efficient than it ought to be
I am well aware that I am suggesting somewhat repressive measures. I have been a motorist for 26 years and, like most hon. Members, I face these problems day by day. I do not want to see created a situation in which the motorist as a class is on the one hand and the rest of the population is on the other, because we are closely intertwined. As a matter of fact, I think the motorist is much maligned because 95 per cent. of motorists go about their business in a proper way, properly equipped to do their journeys in perfect safety. After all, they are in command of a weapon which is capable of inflicting great injury and hardship on their fellows, and they ought to be required to face that position with a proper sense of responsibility.
There are no worse offenders in the use of the Queen's highway than the pedestrians, however, and sometimes their behaviour seems to be positively shocking. Again, I speak as one of them.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Thompson: I am in danger of incurring the displeasure of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Hayman: What proportion of them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order, order.

Mr. Thompson: There ought to be sanctions exercised against pedestrians who are careless. The jay walker ought to be summoned for jay walking and exposing himself to danger, for creating the conditions in which motorists are sometimes involved in accidents for which they have little or no responsibility. What sanctions are there? The pedestrian can be fined, but I doubt whether that is the right way to handle the problem. I doubt whether it is sufficient.
It seems to me that the pedestrian ought to be fined for a first offence and, for a second, should be required to attend evening classes in road behaviour. My word, how he would dislike it. How I would dislike it. Yet it would certainly bring pedestrians to realise that they fit into an ordered pattern of road users and that they cannot treat the highways as playgrounds. It is largely because of the behaviour of the pedestrians that the zebra crossings have lost their value.

Mr. Keenan: That is right. They all commit suicide.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman knows Liverpool as well as I do. I invite him to go to the centre of the city where there is one pedestrian crossing controlled by two extremely efficient women police whose job it is to ensure the safety of the pedestrian crossing a busy road. They have the greatest difficulty in persuading pedestrians to take notice of their signals, which are intended for the safety of the pedestrians themselves. It seems to me that the pedestrians must face up to their responsibilities.
Over the years we have come to regard it as the inalienable right of every man and woman to use the roads. I remember


the old jingle which is probably well known to every hon. Member:
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he is just as dead as if he had been dead wrong.
We have built up an attitude of mind in which everybody is busy asserting his right to use the road over the rights of everybody else, though we ought to regard it as a privilege to do so, and a privilege which may be sacrificed by an abuse of the roads; a privilege which could be lost or limited if we exposed other road users to dangers to which we have no right to expose them and which ought not to be there. If we face this problem in that way, all road users, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians will be jealous of their privileges and anxious to guard their rights.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sorry——

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask your guidance? What must I, as a back bencher, do to get the opportunity of addressing the House, which, as you are probably aware, I do not very often attempt to do? I have been here since 25 minutes to three o'clock, with the exception of 10 minutes when I went out about 40 minutes ago.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is nothing I can do in the matter. That is a matter for the House itself.

Mr. Keenan: What must I do to get consideration? Have I to send a telegram or write to Mr. Speaker, or what must I do if I wish to speak?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter entirely for the House. There were many hon. Members who wanted to speak, but the length of speeches is determined by Members themselves.

Mr. Keenan: That is not the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I noticed hours ago that Members were going to the Chair, and I approached one of your colleagues and found that there was a list. I believe that my name was then added to it. If I want to speak on any debate, have I to write to Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Mr. Strauss.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if, by rising now, I have cut out my hon. Friend, but, realising that many back benchers wanted to speak and that our time is limited, I have deliberately waited rather later than usual, and I propose to confine my remarks to about 20 minutes, or 25 minutes at the outside.
My qualifications for entering into this debate are that as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for some time, I was Chairman of the Road Safety Committee during the last two years of its life and I signed the final report which was submitted to the Minister of Transport. As a result of my work on that Committee, I acquired a certain amount of knowledge and experience and certain views which I desire to submit to the House at the end of this important debate.
Everyone will agree that it has been an important debate—everyone, perhaps, except those who have, unfortunately, been cut out through lack of time.

Mr. Keenan: We do not get enough time.

Mr. Strauss: The number of suggestions which have been put forward and the keenness shown throughout the debate by those who have taken part are some indication of the interest taken in this problem throughout the country, and, in particular, of that all-important aspect of the road problem, road safety. In the few remarks which I propose to make I want to confine myself to that aspect, not because I do not have definite views on others, but because it is, as I have said, the aspect on which I have the greatest knowledge and, perhaps, the strongest feelings.
We are all agreed, in all parts of the House, that the accidents and deaths on our roads are appallingly high and that vigorous action should be taken to reduce the monthly casualty lists. Opinions differ as to how this can be best done, and people have varying ideas as to the relative importance of the remedies which can, or should, be applied. When we are considering this problem we should bear in mind one fact which has hardly been touched upon in this debate, and which, indeed, many people think it right to conceal in the belief that by concealing it they are strengthening the case for drastic action. The fact is that, as a result of a great deal of action by


the Government, by local authorities, by road safety committees by the police and by other bodies, the number of road accidents today is far less than before the war.
The accidents and deaths on our roads, both for adults and for children are down by 30 per cent. compared with 1938 and most of the years in the 1930's. If we take the figure which is probably more significant—the number of accidents per vehicle on the roads—we find that there has been a fall of 50 per cent. I think it is important to state these figures. They should not lead us into complacency, but, on the contrary, they should make us realise that by taking action along certain lines we can materially affect the number of road accidents.
During the 'thirties practically nothing was done about road accidents. There were no great safety campaigns and most people seemed to take the attitude that a high rate of road accidents was inevitable and, like unemployment and poverty, would always be with us. But, since the war, we have taken a different attitude and all sorts of road safety activities have been launched and a combination of those activities has brought about remarkable results.
The fact that, based on the number of vehicles in this country, the number of accidents is actually 50 per cent. less than pre-war should stimulate us to intensify and extend our efforts. We should see what more can be done, either along the lines of the action we have already taken, or on new lines, to reduce accidents further, because their number is still frightful.
The fall that has taken place did not happen automatically, but was the consequence of drastic action on the part of a number of authorities. Those actions can be divided into two categories—educating the public and dealing with particular black spots. The accident rate is rising at the moment and in the first five months of this year it was about 9 per cent. higher than last year, although it is still well below 1938.
Yet today, in spite of the drop, 14 people are killed on the roads every day and of the 14 two are children. There are about 600 accidents a day. Every one of those deaths and accidents is unnecessary. Practically every one could have been

avoided if proper care had been taken by the pedestrian, the motorist, or the cyclist concerned. Some people try to comfort themselves by saying that the number of deaths from road accidents is only 1 per cent. of the total deaths of the country and only one to 18 of the deaths from cancer and one to 40 of the deaths from heart disease. But every one of those accidents is a human tragedy and most of them involve great suffering and distress, physical and mental, to the victim and his or her relatives.
What, then, should be done during the next few years to bring down the accident figures? There is the proposal to build new roads and eliminate black spots. Of course, new roads would be some contribution towards solving the problem. If we by-pass villages and towns the risk of accidents in the main streets is reduced. If, on the new roads, there are dual carriageways and the bad corners of the old are eliminated, the roads will be safer. That is all to the good, but even more could be done in dealing with black spots by the use of guard rails, notices, re-surfacing and a hundred and one other ways. Although I cannot accuse the Government of being negligent about this problem—they have done a great deal—they could do much more. One can never be satisfied and I should like to see effort in this direction intensified.
When we consider the main accident problem we must, however, come to the conclusion that the construction of new roads, while highly desirable for a number of reasons, particularly in the interests of the national economy, cannot be a major factor in reducing the accident rate of the country. That is because, as has been said by the Minister of Transport, about 80 per cent. of the accidents occur in built-up areas. That figure is rather higher than I had thought. I should have thought that it was about 60 per cent.——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Seventy-eight.

Mr. Strauss: The building of new roads can have little effect on the accident rate in London, for example. In the Metropolitan Police area last year there were 575 deaths and 40,000 casualties. The building of new roads would, obviously, not have much effect in reducing the rate of accidents there.
We therefore have to consider what is the most fruitful use of effort, money and resources we can make which will immediately—during the next few years—reduce the number of casualties on our roads. Apart from the elimination of black spots, which should go on much faster than at present, I believe that the main line of action is one which has been touched upon by a number of Members, and is one which I wish to develop during the few remaining minutes during which I shall address the House. The matter was dealt with by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole)—an intensified propaganda campaign.
Much has already been done in that direction and all praise should go to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the local safety committees and the police for what they have done—the police have been magnificent in their educational work in the schools—in propaganda, in getting people to realise the danger of accidents and the need to take care on the roads. I suggest that we now require a nation wide propaganda campaign similar, and on the same scale, as that which was launched about 1946. I urge that, not only because I think it is obviously desirable on the broadest grounds, but because we proved that that campaign had a marked effect on the number of road deaths in this country.
When that campaign came to its peak there was a striking fall in the number of accidents and deaths in spite of the fact that there was an increasing number of cars coming on to the 'roads month by month. I give these figures: in 1946. total casualties numbered 163,000; in the next year the total was 166,000; the year after that, when the campaign was at its height, the figure dropped to 153,000. There were 13,000 fewer casualties and 370 fewer deaths at a time when the number of cars on the road was rising rapidly.
In view of that past experience and the circumstances existing today, it is desirable that a similar campaign should be launched at the earliest possible opportunity and developed on the same sort of scale. It is true that it will be expensive; it will cost£100,000, or may be£200,000, but it will have a lasting effect,

as well as a stimulating effect, on all local activities. In my view, it would do more than anything else to bring down the number of accidents.
What would be its motive? It would try to bring home to everyone using the roads, as we did in the old campaign, the the danger of the roads. We should try to make everyone realise that an accident is something which might well happen to them and not something which happens only to someone else in the next village or the next street.
The campaign must be carried out in such a way that the attention of all road users is drawn to it and they are made aware of the possible horrible consequences of careless road behaviour on their part. Extensive use should be made of the B.B.C., posters, advertisements in the Press and films. A large number of excellent films were produced last time. The active help of every type of organisation should be enlisted, including the churches, and also the brewers who, last time, put up notices in their "pubs" warning people not to take drink before driving. What effect that had I do not know, but the point is that a campaign organised on such a scale should have a cumulative effect.
If the Government consider pursuing this matter, as I hope they will, I should like to tell them that in advertising such a campaign either in the Press or by posters, it is no use using gentle methods. You cannot advertise road safety and ask people to avoid killing each other through the normal advertising technique of pictures of pretty, smiling kirls. You have to shock and frighten people. You have to use such effective means—disturbing as they are, and certain to arouse criticism—as the "widow poster" which was a major feature of the previous road safety campaign.

Mr. J. Hudson: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House what method of shocking the people was used by the brewers to bring this home to the people in their "pubs"?

Mr. Strauss: They did their utmost, because it was to their interest as well as to the national interest. They put up notices in the "pubs" warning people of the dangers of driving after they had taken alcohol.


The "widow poster" was much criticised at the time because it disturbed people. It was meant to, and I think that it, more than anything else, was responsible for focusing the attention of people on the danger of road accidents in the post-war years. I say, therefore, that if the Government carry out such a campaign which I think they should, despite the expense—though this would be small compared with the cost of other methods which have been discussed—they must be prepared to use drastic measures, and be prepared to annoy and to shock people.
One of the most important effects of such a campaign is that it stimulates local effort. Local road safety committees and other organisations redouble their efforts when they see that a national campaign is being carried on. The accident rate is likely to increase substantially unless something is done, because the number of vehicles on the roads is still growing year by year. There are now 50 per cent. more licensed vehicles than before the war and the number is growing. So, also, is the number of children and old people who are the most accident-prone section of the community. It is especially desirable when the accident rate is taking a marked upward turn that further action, beyond that at present contemplated by the Government, should be taken.
A large number of suggestions have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have not time to comment on them. I want to put forward two proposals which are important. One is a rather distant proposal and the other an immediate one. They are among those which struck me as important when I dealt with road safety problems at the Ministry of Transport.
One of these days we should set up a system, similar to that which exists in many parts of America, of vehicle testing stations all over the country. Every licensed vehicle should report to a station, to start with maybe once every two years and, later, once every year, to be thoroughly checked. Steering, brakes and everything else should be examined to ensure that vehicles on the road are in a thoroughly safe condition. I believe that that would have a marked effect, as it is said to have in America.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: What about old cars sold by "spivs" on bomb sites?

Mr. Strauss: Unless they get a certificate from a service station no licence would be granted.
Although this cannot be done immediately, I see no reason why preliminary steps should not be taken to set up an organisation of this sort, first in the more populated centres where there is a great amount of traffic and later over the whole country. This would not cost very much. It could be done reasonably cheaply. We went into the figures at the time and decided that for the amount of benefit which would result this would be a comparatively cheap remedy.
The other proposal is the desirability of ensuring that children should be encouraged or even forced to pass the cycle test under the auspices of the local representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Headmasters of schools should be asked to insist that boys and girls should not be allowed to cycle to school unless they present a certificate showing that they have passed the appropriate test. That could be done quickly and it would be helpful.
The remedy for road accidents does not lie in one specific. The only way to get results is by applying vigorously and actively a variety of different remedies. That is what has been happening in the last few years. That is why the rate of accidents today is much lower than it was before the war. Many different pressures have been applied; many different devices have been considered and put into operation.
Above all, I believe that today the added impetus of a national campaign for road safety would bring about striking and immediate results. If it prevented the accident rate rising it would be remarkable indeed, because unless something of this sort is done the figures are bound to increase. We must bear in mind that the fundamental cause of accidents is somebody's carelessness. A bend in a road, a bad surface and other factors of that kind are contributory causes which can be eliminated. But the most difficult factor to eliminate is carelessness.
If we can inculcate, by exhortation, shock tactics, tedious repetition or whatever method is most effective, the permanent consciousness in the minds of all


people that danger is lurking round the corner whenever they go on the road, we can get results. We should inculcate into the minds of people the consciousness that unless they are careful something may happen to them next week or the week after—that they may be one of the 14 people killed on the roads every day. It is only if we succeed in diminishing careless road behaviour that our casualty figures and the number of road deaths will be brought down.
I therefore ask the Minister of Transport to consider all the solutions which have been put before him today by my hon. Friends on this side and by hon. Members opposite—and if ever there was a cause which was uncontroversial, it is this one of road safety. Because of the personal experience which I had in connection with the national safety campaign, and in seeing the results of that campaign, I ask him to consider specially with his colleagues the launching at the first practicable moment of a similar large-scale campaign as I am confident that it would, under present circumstances, be equally successful.

9.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I think this debate will, at any rate, have good propaganda value, and the powerful speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has just made will form a useful part of it. He spoke of a propaganda campaign involving the use of shock tactics. Of course, shock tactics need careful timing, and, although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport says he will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it must be remembered that timing of these matters is of the greatest importance.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I quite agree.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the improvement which followed the campaign in 1946, but the cause of improvements in road accident figures is, to say the least, obscure. It is difficult to say what was the reason for that sudden improvement in 1952, which has been apparently reversed by the trend this year. All these matters need very carefully to be considered.
I am very happy indeed to be able to stand-in this evening for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, not least because he is a constituent of mine and I think it is a proper service for an hon. Member to render to his constituent. When I tell the House that my constituency is traversed by the Hendon Way, the Watford Way, the Great North Way and the North Circular Road, and that a very high proportion of my constituents have to come into the middle of London to their jobs and businesses every day, I think that I can claim to have some firsthand knowledge of the problems involved in this debate.
It is also appropriate that a Minister of the Home Office should be speaking on this occasion. We have a close connection with the police, and the police are responsible for enforcing the law and the regulations which are made by my right hon. Friend.
The administrative machinery for dealing with road traffic is necessarily somewhat complex. As is quite clear from the course of this debate, there is a great complexity of interests involved, and, although the prime responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and it is for him to make the plans and the regulations, nevertheless those regulations have to be carried out by the police. There is therefore necessarily a fairly elaborate machinery of consultation between the police and the Ministry of Transport.
One thing that is clear from what has been said in this debate is that hon. Members in all parts of the House are very familiar with that machinery. It appears therefore that it has made a due impression. The machinery comprises the Road Safety Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport presides and which includes an Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, three chief constables and representatives of the Home Office and Scottish Home Department; the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and, finally, the Traffic Sub-Committee of the Central Conference of Chief Constables, which is a Home Office committee. On the whole, I think that that machinery has worked well, and that my right hon. Friend is not short of all the advice he needs on this matter.
To some extent, this problem is a clash of two conflicting interests. On the one hand, there is the demand to limit the speed of vehicles in the interest of road safety, and, on the other, there is the demand to increase the speed of traffic in the interest of the national economy. There are only two ways of reconciling these two conflicting interests, and they were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In order completely to reconcile them we would have to carry out all the necessary improvement of the roads and make all the necessary improvement in the discipline, not only of those who drive vehicles, but of cyclists, pedestrians and every other class of road user. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the first of those necessities and has explained, I think to the satisfaction of the House, the present position and why it is that everything cannot be done to meet it.
I think I can say without fear of contradiction, even after listening to this debate, that the people of this country are second to none in the way they behave on the roads, whether as drivers, pedestrians, or in any other way. As has been said, we have 18 vehicles for every mile of road in the country. That is the highest proportion in the world, higher even than in the United States of America.
It is, of course, as has been recognised in all parts of the House, the crowding on the roads which is the main cause of accidents. The most significant fact which emerges is that very nearly 80 per cent. of all accidents take place in built-up areas. I think it would be entirely wrong to set about trying to reduce the number of accidents by slowing up traffic. Certainly the purpose of the Ministry of Transport and of the police is to keep traffic moving, because we believe that that is the right way to deal with both aspects of this problem.
Were we to seek to put a speed limit on the arterial roads, and there is a very considerable demand for that—a demand which reaches me daily from my constituents, and, I have no doubt, many other hon. Members also—the only effect would be to drive the vehicles off these new unlimited highways back on to the old courses through the thickly populated areas. The result would be that we should have not only slower traffic but

more accidents, because it is in the thickly populated areas that the accidents occur.
In 1952 there were 206,000 accidents involving death or injury—not all serious injury, about 150,000 of those were not classified as serious. That is an appalling total. Certainly no one in the Government is going to be complacent about it. The suggestion has been made that the proper remedy for dealing with the matter lies in imposing more drastic penalties than at present exist, but not many accidents are due to what may be conveniently called "accident repeaters." It is not very often that the same person is involved in an accident twice. In the 206,000 accidents last year, 264,000 vehicles were involved, out of a total of some 5 million vehicles on the road. Approximately there was an accident involving injury to the person to one vehicle in 20 last year. Perhaps I could put it in another way. Roughly speaking, every vehicle driver is concerned in an accident involving injury once in 20 years.
I draw attention to those figures to show that the cause of accidents is not so much the constant reckless driving of individuals as the occasional careless lapse of a person who has never been involved in an accident before. Those are the cases with which we really have to deal if we are to tackle this problem thoroughly. There are of course some reckless drivers, just as there are drivers who never become involved in an accident in the whole course of their lives.
As regards reckless drivers, it is for the courts to determine what the proper punishment should be. I see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his place and I am certain that his experience as Home Secretary was that it is for the courts to determine punishment and not for the Government or the Home Secretary to give directions to the magistrates or to anyone what penalties they should impose.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an unfortunate disparity between the sentences which different magistrates give?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Our view of these cases is usually formed from extremely condensed newspaper reports. I am not saying that there are not disparities, but it is impossible to judge the


merits of a penalty from the abbreviated reports that we see in the newspapers.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Gentleman has alluded to me, I would say that it is for this House to fix the maximum penalty that may be imposed for any offence, but we must be careful not to fix it so high that juries will be frightened to convict.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I entirely agree, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps it will be of some interest to the House if I give figures in this connection. In 1951 there were 612,000 motoring cases in which fines were imposed. In 1952 that had increased to 687,000, so it looks as if, on the whole, courts were imposing more fines. Sentences of imprisonment in 1951 were 1,433 and in 1952 1,609, a very substantial increase. The number of cases of disqualification fell very slightly from 17,687 to 17,155. The number of endorsements of licences rose from 96,000 to 110,000.
I think it is clear from those figures that on the whole the courts have tended, comparing 1951 with 1952, to take a rather sterner view of motoring offences. I think, too, that if any hon. Member will study the Acts and see what can be done he will agree that the penalties provided are quite adequate to deal with any offences which may be committed. Perhaps I may give the House a few further figures quickly. The number of prosecutions in 1952 as compared with 1951 rose by roughly 8 per cent. The number of warnings given by the police also rose by about 8 per cent., and the number of prosecutions in speed limit cases rose by some 35 per cent. It is quite clear, I think, that the police have been concentrating a good deal of attention on this matter.
Now let me deal with a number of individual points raised in the debate. One hon. Member opposite asked about the use of women police in traffic duties. The position is that there are about 1,800 women police, including 388 in the Metropolitan Police, at the present time. The number of women employed on this duty is necessarily limited by the total number of women in the force, but they are being used and they are proving very satisfactory. The number cannot be expanded

too fast because, obviously, if we try to do that we interfere with the efficiency and destroy the balance and experience of the force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and others raised the question of the standardisation of signs. The position is that types of signs are already made standard by Regulations. The last Regulations were made in 1950 and dealt with size, colour and type.

Mr. Nicholson: Would my hon. Friend allow me to correct him? I did not mean the actual signs qua signs. I meant the use made of them.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not know that it would be possible to standardise that. There are some signs that can be put up at the discretion of the highway authorities, and there is, therefore, to that extent some lack of uniformity.

Mr. Nicholson: I should have thought that it was most important that there should be standard use of the "Halt" sign. Some highway authorities use it in one way, and some in another. I recommended its standardised use.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I want to say a word about these "Halt" and "Slow" signs now. The "Halt" sign should be used in those cases where visibility is so restricted on the main road that it is essential to stop altogether in order to see whether there is anything coming. There are other cases where it is undesirable to use the "Halt" sign. I think my hon. Friend will agree that if the "Halt" sign were used in every case we should find that motorists tended to think, "Oh, there is another 'Halt' sign," and to ignore them, so that their value was cheapened. That is what happens in all cases where we over-use a useful thing.

Mr. Blackburn: If they are ignored surely an offence is committed?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is exactly the trouble. If we create offences the prevention or punishment of which cannot be enforced, or which public opinion as a whole regards as merely silly, the result is that the creation of the offence ceases to be effective. That is the position.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that practice varies considerably as between counties. In Staffordshire, although they do not use signs on


posts at the side of the road, they always put a stop sign on the road itself. I do not remember having seen a standard of driving better than it is in Staffordshire, and people do adhere to that instruction. This is much too important a matter to be described as just a constituency argument.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that what I have said is clear and lays down a principle which is followed.

Mr. Snow: It is a wrong approach.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I believe it to be the right approach, and I think that, on the whole, it is one which commends itself to the people of this country.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) raised the question of speed limits in villages where there is no lighting system. The position there is that a speed limit can be placed on roads without street lighting. The Minister has power under the Road Traffic Act to enable that to be done in those cases where it is necessary. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth also raised the question of the Education Act, 1944. In paragraph 5 of Circular 242 of the Ministry of Education, to which he referred, the Minister said that in present circumstances she did not regard it as justifiable to provide free transport over shorter distances than those laid down, but she added that she would be prepared to consider quite exceptional cases where the authority could satisfy her that special justification existed, for example, cases of serious traffic dangers and the special needs of handicapped children.
The hon. Member asked if it were possible to give the number of applications for such exceptional treatment. I have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, and he tells me that he cannot possibly get the figures now, and he very much doubts whether it would be possible to get them, but there have been cases where an exception has been allowed. I cannot go further than that; that is all the information which I have. The kind of case is where children have to cross, for example, the Great North Road or where they have to walk down a length of busy arterial road where there is great danger.

Mr. Snow: I did not ask this question just across the floor of the Chamber. I gave notice of it at the Parliamentary Secretary's office. Why is not this information available? It should be available.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can only tell the hon. Member that serious efforts have been made to procure this information and I understand that it would mean a great deal of inquiry from a very large number of authorities.

Mr. Snow: Nonsense.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member also asked a question about stocks of brakes for bicycles. I can only tell him that the advice that there was insufficient of these brakes to enable the Regulation announced by my right hon. Friend to be made came to him from the trade itself, through the representative association. That is the information he received, and it was upon that information that he took the action referred to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) produced a very handsome bicycle pedal with reflectors upon it. I understand that these are probably not illegal. The Ministry will be interested to see how they work out in practice. It is understood that they have been used overseas, particularly in Germany, and such information as is now available indicates that they are useful.
The subject of the compulsory examination of vehicles was raised by various hon. Members. The evidence does not show that a large number of accidents is due to defective vehicles. It would cost a very great deal of money to set up compulsory testing stations as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who was the chairman of the former Committee on Road Safety, and the Government do not see their way at present to do that. The setting up of such testing stations would compete with other necessary improvements, and, on the whole, they do not appear to have first priority.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) raised the subject of one-way streets. Perhaps I can say, without going out of order, that the Minister contemplates, when the next opportunity for legislation occurs, giving the principal local authorities power to


make orders, without need for confirmation by the Minister, for certain matters including one-way streets.

Mr. Blackburn: That would not meet the point I had in mind. I said "not the county councils." When the hon. Gentleman refers to "the principal local authorities" be means the county boroughs and the county councils. I should prefer the non-county boroughs and the urban districts to have the power.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I hope, at any rate, that the hon. Gentleman will regard half a loaf as being better than no bread. The power would be subject to general directions from the Minister and some right of appeal.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) asked about the Kingsway Subway. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), when Minister of Transport, appointed a technical committee under his chief engineer to inquire into the possibility of using that subway for vehicles. The committee was representative of highway authorities and the British Transport Commission. I am told that it was unanimous that the subway could not economically be used for vehicles, and a copy of the report has been placed in the Library in case hon. Members are interested in it. The hon. Member also asked about the giving of instruction to drivers particularly women, about the mechanism of the car. This is included in a draft manual on driving the publication of which is being considered.
The proposed Forth Bridge Road was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). The position is that the Forth Bridge Act already provides for the charging of tolls for 30 years at levels approved by the Minister, so, if the Forth Bridge Road becomes a possibility, the matter can be considered without further legislation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was hoping that the fact that this large income would be available from tolls would encourage the Ministry to engage in the actual provision of the bridge.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is no doubt one of the matters which my right hon. Friend is taking into consideration in this connection.

It being Half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

HOUSING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, LABOUR, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the' Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, MATERIALS AND SUPPLY

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

TRANSPORT, FUEL, POWER AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS X

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1953–54

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1953–54

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [23rd July]

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, the sum of£2,200,549,519 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: On a point of order. I wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on something which I raised previously, but on which I was unsuccessful. I want to know what action an hon. Member must take to be considered for taking part in a debate. Today, I have been in the House from twenty-five minutes to three until now, except for 10 minutes and I did not get an opportunity to speak. How does one get on a list of those who may be considered by whoever is in the Chair? Do I write you, Mr. Speaker, or send you a telegram or what steps should I take because it is utterly unsatisfactory that an hon. Member can sit here all day and not be allowed to speak?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must realise that far more hon. Members wanted to speak today than there was time for. The only counsel that I can give to the hon. Member and the House in general is that when many Members wish to speak speeches should be kept as short as possible. Today, we have had some long ones and if it had not been so no doubt the hon. Member would have been called.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament "; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the authorisation of measures for the control of traffic, at places where children cross roads on their way to or from school, by persons other than police constables, it is expedient to authorise the following payments out of moneys provided by Parliament, that is to say—

(a) in respect of expenditure which is incurred by a county council, the council of a county borough or the town council of a large burgh, or the Common Council of the City of London, for the purposes of arrangements made under the said Act by the council, or which is directed in accordance with the said Act to be paid out of the metropolitan police fund for the purposes of arrangements made under the said Act by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the payment of such sums, not exceeding one half of the expenditure, as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury direct, subject to such conditions as he may with the like consent determine;
(b) the payment of administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the said Act;
(c) the payment of any increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act.

Resolution agreed to

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ARRANGEMENTS FOR PATROLLING SCHOOL CROSSINGS.)

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "Commissioner," to insert "shall consult and."
There is substance in this Amendment, because it seeks to link the local authorities more satisfactorily with the county councils. By "local authorities" I mean the rural district councils and the borough councils within a county council area. On the Second Reading of the Bill, and from the Explanatory Memorandum, I gathered that the county council would be the administrative agent and that the police of the county area would be the


main advisers to the county authority in respect of the school crossings and the appointment of school crossing patrols.
Therefore, instead of placing, as the Clause does, the responsibility on the rural district council or the borough council to make representations to the county authority, we suggest that it would be much more satisfactory if the county council, having the advice of the police, had imposed upon it, as this Amendment suggests, the obligation to consult the local authorities within its area excluding, of course, the county council, because it has equal powers with the county council as far as this Bill is concerned. This would remove any sense of grievance on the part of the local authorities and would discourage a tendency on their part to appeal to the Minister from decisions taken by the county council, particularly if those decisions are taken without prior consultation with the subordinate authorities concerned.
For those reasons I hope the Under-Secretary of State will consider this Amendment favourably, and, if the words in which it is framed are not satisfactory, will undertake to consider sympathetically the points I have submitted to him.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I hope that the Amendment will be resisted. There is a great deal of difference between
shall have regard to any representations,
which is the wording in the Bill, and
shall consult and shall have regard to,
which is what the Amendment suggests. One has first to consider who these local authorities are that are referred to. They are defined, I think, in Section 305 of the Local Government Act, 1932. They include borough councils, rural district councils, urban district councils and parish councils. The total in the country would come to something like 8,000, which is a large number.
I understand that by the Amendment the county councils would be under an obligation to write to all their local authorities and ask whether they had any suggestions to make. This might provoke a great deal of correspondence and applications that normally would never be forthcoming. Any self-respecting local authority that was written to in that way would feel under an obligation to make

a suggestion, which, in the ordinary course, they might never think of making. As a result, a greatly increased amount of administrative work would be required by the county councils, which might lead even to additional staff; and in these days, when everyone is doing his best to keep down the rates, that is highly undesirable.
The more serious aspect is that considerable delay might be caused in getting the patrols put on duty. A good deal of correspondence and formality would have to be gone through, and if there were a great number of applications, more than were really necessary, priorities would have to be established. By the wording of the Bill—" having regard to any representations "—every necessity would be met.
County councils are responsible bodies. I have been a member of one for a great many years, and I know that they would do all that was necessary, that no application would be ignored and every application would be given full consideration. The present form of the Clause would avoid the submission of a number of cases that were not founded on any need and which, if put forward, would waste a lot of time. The wording of the Clause is amply sufficient, and I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The Amendment seems to me to be so sensible that I hardly think it necessary to make a speech on it, for so sensible a Minister as we have on the Government Front Bench will immediately see how eminently sensible it is. What we ask is that before the position of the patrols and the time at which they operate is determined, the county council should consult the local authority in whose area the patrols are to be situated, whether that authority is a non-county borough, a rural district council, an urban district council or a parish council.
People in their own localities are very jealous concerning the safety of their children, and they might be expected to know their own localities and the danger spots and at what time of day they were the most dangerous. Therefore, those people should know best where the school patrols should be situated and at what time they should come into operation. For


that reason, we ask that before the final decision is taken, the local authorities should be consulted. They are more likely to make a proper decision and to convey it to the county council than would be some official of the county council by studying a road map or by making occasional visits in a motor car to the area.
9.45 p.m.
There is nothing whatever derogatory to the dignity of a county council in the proposed Amendment. After all, there is nothing undignified in consulting a rural district council, or an urban district council. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has greatly exaggerated the amount of additional correspondence which would be entailed if the Amendment were adopted. It would only mean a letter from the rural or urban district council asking to send a few representatives to county hall to consult the officials of the county. The additional correspondence would be very small indeed.
I think that the hon. and gallant Member has also grossly exaggerated the amount of delay which would be caused. The delay would be no more than the time required for fixing a meeting between the representatives of the minor local authorities and the representatives of the county councils. It may be better to have a little delay if the result is more satisfactory in fixing the patrol at the proper place and the proper time. The usefulness and sensibleness of the Amendment speaks for itself, and I am sure that the Minister will accept it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). Subsection (4) of Clause 1 is a compromise provision satisfying, I understand, neither the County Councils' Association nor the Association of Municipal Corporations, I understand, also, that they agree that the matter should continue as it stands, although that might be putting it too high. I think that all our purposes are common in this discussion. The main objection is to formal consultations. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) said, the result of the Amendment would necessarily be delay.
At present, if the Commissioner of Police or a county council receives representations from a parent that a patrol is urgently needed and is convinced that that is so, it is possible to take action immediately. But, if statutory machinery for prior consultation were brought into being, it would be necessary to obtain the approval of the interested authorities before anything could be done. This Amendment requires consultation.

Mr. Moyle: Not approval.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It requires consultation and, in some cases, that might mean waiting for a meeting of the appropriate committee of the local authority, which might even be a matter of weeks. That would have to be carried out before action was taken. The present arrangements allow the school crossing patrol authority to take action immediately, if it is required, while allowing interested local authorities to make representations and those representations have to be considered. That seems a preferable way of dealing with the matter since it is more likely to allow the patrols to be appointed where they are needed without any delay. I ask the Committee to accept the wording as it stands, not as satisfying every party but as a reasonable compromise which looks like working.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if any such authority is aggrieved by a decision of a council of a county or of the said Commissioner they shall have the right of appeal to the appropriate Minister.
I happen to have in my constituency a very live road safety committee which has taken a tremendous interest in school crossings and the excellent work that school crossing patrols can do. So much has been their interest in the matter that I thought when I saw the Bill that the least I should do would be to consult that committee as to whether this Bill would be adequate having regard to their special knowledge of this problem. They have replied to me telling me that they regard this as an excellent Bill on which they congratulate the Minister for introducing it and another place on having passed it and sent it here. They feel, however, that there is a flaw in the Bill which is dealt with in my Amendment.
They feel that it ought to be possible that a local authority such as that of which they happen to be a part should have the opportunity of going beyond making representations to the county council or, in the other case, the Commissioner of Police. They feel that in a question such as this, of which they have, as was pointed out on the previous Amendment, a very peculiar knowledge, they should have the right, if their representations are rejected by the county council or the Commissioner of Police, to submit an appeal to the Minister about any decision by the county council or the Commissioner of Police which they regard as a wrong one.
I think that the wording of Clause 1 (4), in so far as it instructs the county council or the Commissioner of Police to have regard to any representations made by the local authority, is the right way in which to act. But while it is right that that should be done, I feel that it does not go quite far enough and that we should go a little beyond what is contained in the Bill. This point was very well made in the Second Reading debate, when the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) said:
In Heston and Isleworth we are fairly well satisfied with what has been done by the Commissioner of Police, but there are a number of cases where we have made applications for school crossing patrols and they have not been granted. Will it be any easier to get patrols in the future than in the past? I was sorry to hear an hon. Member opposite say it will not be any easier, but one would hope as a result of this Bill that it will be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 841.]
The point he was making was quite obviously that in some cases the local authority do not agree with the Commissioner of Police in respect of the setting up of school crossing patrols. I feel that we ought to provide for the local authority to have a right of appeal to the Minister. This is a decision which should be taken as near to the ground as possible. No one is in closer touch with local conditions than the local authority concerned.
As was pointed out on a previous Amendment, no one knows better than the local authority the nature of the roads, the times at which these crossing are used, the volume of traffic and the danger to their children, etc. Certainly the local authority will know very much better than will someone in the county council

office perhaps 20 or 30 miles away. There would be some satisfaction to the local council in having a right of appeal on a matter which they feel deeply affects them and their constituents. It would give a warning to the county council or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, because of a possibility of an appeal to the Minister, to give careful consideration to all the representations that are made to them.
I recognise the point that there might be to some extent a cluttering up of the Ministry with appeals from local authorities; I can see the difficulty. In view, however, of the nature of the problem with which the Bill is concerned, and the safety which we think will be increased as a result of these school crossing patrols and the representations which may be made by those whose knowledge I regard as being exceptional, and whose work is first rate, I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to the Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). The effect of this Amendment, as he said, would be to give to non-county boroughs, to urban districts or rural districts, and I think also to parish councils a right of appeal to the central Government. It does not seem appropriate that the central Government should be empowered to interfere in this manner. Someone has to be responsible and that responsibility has been placed on the county councils and other authorities by the Bill. They have a duty to listen to representations which are made. I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: That is a very disappointing reply, which does not deal with the facts. So far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned there is an appeal to this House, because the Home Secretary is responsible for the acts of the Commissioner of Police If a non-county borough or other local authority in the Metropolitan Police area are aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner, they can have the Secretary of State questioned in this House. I have been Home Secretary and know what are his duties.
We have spent today discussing the problem of safety on the roads. We have appealed to everyone to join in a campaign to try to reduce road casualties.


Many people who are vitally interested live in villages such as those about which we have heard today. It may be, because the village school has an in-inadequate playground with no proper approach, that they would desire one of these patrols. We ought to recognise that these local people are closely connected with the children of the area. Perhaps some members of the local authority have children at the school and they should be given an opportunity of appealing to the Department if they are turned down by the county council.
Feeling runs high after an accident. As a member of a local education authority I know how parents feel alarmed about their children being subjected to dangers on the roads. I should have thought this a matter where, if an application is turned down, the aggrieved local authority should be able to make an approach to someone responsible, a Minister of the Crown, to get the matter dealt with properly and to ensure that their point of view shall be heard. That should be done in order to give local public confidence to the working of this Measure.

Amendment negatived.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out subsection (7).

This is a formal Privilege Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.0 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: I should like the Government to give some further indication as to the effect of subsection (4) which obliges the county councils to
… have regard to any representations made to them … by local authorities … in the county …
I have received from parent-teacher associations in my constituency representations saying that they have heard rumours that the Cheshire County Council may not provide school crossing patrols and that they will not provide them where the parent-teacher organisations consider them to be necessary unless they are compelled to do so. Moreover, they cannot be compelled to do so under the Bill.
I know that there may be misunderstanding about the position but, as it is obviously desirable that all county councils should take advantage of the provisions of this Measure as soon as possible, this Clause should not be allowed to pass until we have had further assurance from the Government on this aspect. In other words, I wish to repeat the question put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) during the Second Reading debate. What steps will the Government take to stimulate the local authorities to take action if necessary?

Colonel J. H. Harrison: I should like to ask about subsection (3) which deals with the provision of the requisite training of persons to be appointed. I should like an assurance that the people employed in this part-time work will not be those who could be fully employed in industry or agriculture. This is especially a job either for pensioners or disabled people. Will the Under-Secretary give a directive to the county councils that they should not employ people capable of full-time work?

Mr. Ede: It is a pity that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) did not support the Amendments of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. They would have secured for his parent-teacher associations through their local authorities, the right to have some say if the Cheshire County Council should adopt the line which he mentioned which I sincerely hope they will not adopt. I speak as one who is not without responsibilities in connection with county councils. If any body adopts the attitude before they consider any case that they will not have any of these school patrols, then we have wasted all our time in the House of Commons today. All the speeches have been wasteful and merely hot air which will have no effect.
We have spent today saying that we must give public opinion a shock. Certainly it would get a shock if it was thought that any county council would say before it had considered a case, that in no circumstances would they appoint one of these school patrols.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I did not say that the Cheshire County Council would refuse to do this. I merely


said that the parent-teacher association had had rumours to that effect. I am certain that the rumours are not true. I want to know what action the Government will take if something of that sort should happen, though I do not think that it will.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not believe that the rumour is true but he wants some assurance in case he should have come to a wrong judgment about the common sense of his own county council. I will leave the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to deal with that, but I do want to make it quite clear that, from this side of the House, we feel that these powers now given to county councils should be used with a sense of responsibility, and that they should, wherever possible, meet the legitimate demands of the population of the county which they serve. While I regret that our Amendments were not accepted by the Government, I sincerely hope that they will be proved to have been unnecessary by the action which county councils throughout the country will take.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) is whether the parent-teacher association will have any power to make representations. The answer, of course, is that they will have no power under subsection (4), and that is the intention. It would clearly be impossible to give any power to organisations of that kind, and we should have to have a schedule to the Bill 100 miles long if it was thought desirable and we attempted to do so. If, in fact, parent-teacher associations cared to make representations, no doubt, they would be considered either through the ordinary machinery of the appropriate county council, or, indeed, through the bodies referred to in subsection (4). That seems to be the proper way of dealing with that matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) asked if the Government would give a directive that patrols should not employ persons otherwise capable of full-time employment. I think it is probable that very few councils would wish to employ such persons, and that very few such persons would wish to seek such employment, but the intention is to give the responsibility to the councils, who are responsible

bodies, to decide who it is appropriate to employ in the circumstances of the case. It would be quite wrong for the Government to seek to interfere with their discretion in such a case as this.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, namely, what the Government would do to ensure that the county councils do, in fact, exercise their powers under this Bill, which is what we want to know.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I said during the Second Reading debate—and I do not know that this is really appropriate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill "—this debate will bring the matter to the attention of the county councils. There is no question at all that county councils will not take the proper action.
Perhaps I may say, since the matter has been raised, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked me the total number of authorities using patrols at the present time. He asked me if the 32 additional patrols I mentioned in my speech were included in the sum of 73, or whether they were extra to that number. I told him they were included in it, but I find on inquiry that the 73 were using patrols at the end of 1951, so that the 32 authorities which came in in 1952 are additional to that figure, and therefore, 105 education authorities were already using patrols at the end of 1952. There are further authorities who have come in since, so that the position already is that a very large majority of authorities are using patrols even before this Bill comes into operation. I have no doubt that they will all, in fact, use the machinery which is envisaged.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I did not support the Amendment from the other side of the Committee because I thought that, on balance, it might slow up what we all want to achieve if we gave power to local authorities and outside organisations to intervene. I should like a more categorical statement from my hon. Friend, however, on how the Government would act if county councils were reluctant to take up the powers given them in this Bill.
We have lost the opportunity of embodying it in the Bill, and I am not sorry that we have, because I think that


the harm would have been greater than the good had we accepted the Amendment. But I think that my hon. Friend ought to say that the Government will use all the influence they have to see that any county councils which are reluctant on grounds of economy or any other grounds to take up these powers will do so to the full. I think my hon. Friend ought to give the House that assurance.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is most unsatisfactory to leave this as it is. I was completely convinced by the Minister's answer on our first Amendment, and I accepted what he said that it would have resulted in delay. But the second Amendment is in a very different position. My right hon. Friend dealt with the position as far as the Metropolitan District is concerned. It means that in that district Questions can be asked in this House if the Commissioner of Police does not provide patrols where the people want them.
Why should we have that distinction between London and the rest of the country? Why should not the rest of the country equally have an opportunity of raising the matter with the Minister, not necessarily on the Floor of this House, but by appeal to the Minister if, in fact, the people in the locality consider that the county council is not providing them with the patrols they require?
That is all that is required. It would avoid the cumbersome procedure which we have in the case of the Metropolitan District of Questions and answers in this House, and it could be done simply by the ordinary channels going up through the county council to the Minister. Why should not that be done? We assume that the Government are serious about trying to reduce the fatal and other accidents on the road. If they really are serious about it, then the least they could do, where there is a responsible local authority which really is disturbed by the decision of a county council, is to see that the Minister should be sufficiently concerned to give the matter his personal consideration. That is all that is asked for, and I hope something will be done about it.
It is no good the Minister saying, "Oh, well, we do not propose to do anything

to urge the county councils, or to ensure that they will carry out the provisions of this Bill. We are relying upon the newspapers to advertise the debates in this House to bring this matter to the notice of county councils." That is what he said a few moments ago. It is a ridiculous proposal to make.
Here we have a Bill whose object is to reduce the fatalities on the road, and for that purpose it is considered sufficiently serious to take up the time of the House to consider it. Why is it not sufficiently important for the Minister's time, on occasion, to be taken up when a local authority considers that the county council is not providing a patrol which ought to be provided? It is quite farcical, and the least the Minister can do is to give the House the assurance, for which he has been pressed from all sides, that if the Cheshire County Council—if there is any doubt about that council—or any other county council which turns down the provisions of this Bill in general, or refuses in any particular case to provide a patrol when the local authority requires it, that steps will then be taken to see that the matter is properly considered and that the county council does its duty.

Colonel Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Questions could be asked in this House regarding the Metropolitan area, but not, apparently, in the counties. It is quite clear that questions could be asked in the counties. I think this synthetic indignation against county councils, who are most responsible bodies, is extremely unworthy of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not synthetic indignation. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking from ignorance. The position is, of course, that Questions can be asked on the Floor of the House about the Metropolitan Police District because the Home Secretary is responsible for it. The Home Secretary has no responsibility, nor has anybody else, for the county councils under the provisions of this Bill. It could possibly be done on the Floor of the House if there were the right of appeal to the Minister. The Minister has the responsibility as it stands, and any question can be asked in the House and outside.

10.15 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The question which the hon. and learned Member has raised of the difference between the Metropolitan Police and the police elsewhere goes far outside the confines of the Bill. Where power is given to the Commissioner in the Metropolis there necessarily follows a different set of circumstances from those which arise outside London. When the Bill is passed, the Home Office will be sending a circular in the ordinary way to the authorities concerned. I do not for a moment believe that they will need any urging on this matter for the reasons that I have given.
In the ordinary way, on the passage of a Bill, there will be a communication from the appropriate Department to the authorities concerned. If any authority is laggard in this matter, that is due to the working of the machinery of local government in this country. We cannot have responsible local government if we are to say: "What are we going to do if they do not act?" We can only have responsible local government if we give them responsibility.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The Minister seems to have a pathetic belief in the desire of county councils and county borough councils to carry out precisely the provisions of the Bill. This is an enabling Bill, and my hon. Friend proposed something which would give to the smaller local authorities who know their districts intimately a chance to put their points of view to the Minister if necessary, but there appears to be no appeal against the county council at all.
Anyone with any knowledge of the working of county councils know that they often feel that they know better than the people in the localities themselves. I could give instance after instance. In this very matter of the safety of children coming out from school a certain county highway authority denied the desire of the school managers—shall we say—for something to be done to prevent accidents to those children. We want more than a circular just emanating from a Department telling authorities that they have powers, which they can find out for themselves from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will do as my hon. and learned Friend has urged.

Mr. David Jones: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer know better than anybody else in the House about the unresponsive attitude of our county councils, so far as delegation of powers is concerned under the Education Act, 1944. With the best intentions in the world and the desire to make the Bill work properly, my right hon. Friend and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote into the Education Act provision for substantial powers to be delegated by county councils to divisional executives, to give them a real place in education. Examination of the powers not delegated by some of the county councils to divisional executives makes a complete farce of that Act.
Here again, we are placing complete reliance upon county councils to do the right thing. Serious differences of opinion may very well occur between local authorities and the county council. Who knows better than the local authority on the job whether or not there are serious dangers to school-children crossing the roads when going to or coming from school?
All that the Bill proposes to do is to say that the county council shall take them into consideration. That may even mean the county officers taking them into consideration and making a recommendation to the county council. It may very well happen that no single member of the county council will reside or even go within a mile or two of the school. In those circumstances he obviously cannot know the serious danger the children run.
Therefore, it seems to me that if this Bill is to be made to work, if we are going to attempt to protect the lives of the children, something much more serious must be sent out by the Secretary of State to the county councils, and that some means ought to be found for making it possible for the smaller local authorities, in the event of dissatisfaction with the county council, raising the matter elsewhere.
It may very well be that in future the Order Paper of the House will be cluttered up with Questions by hon. Members asking whether or not such and such a representation has had the consideration that it ought to have had. To save the Secretary of State a good deal of


trouble it would seem to me that the Under-Secretary of State ought to give the assurance for which the Committee is asking.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I feel myself that we ought not to pass from this matter without stressing the dangers of leaving this Measure as it is. This Measure is intended nationally to safeguard our children who attend our schools. In view of the fact that it is intended to be a national Measure, I feel that the Clause should be made obligatory. I know from long experience, since the passage of the Education Act, 1944, whereby local authorities are empowered to adopt certain progressive measures, that some, being enlightened local authorities, have adopted them, and others, particularly county councils, have not.
I am not referring to Lancashire County Council because Lancashire County Council are a very progressive authority. They have become more progressive in the last two years than ever they have been. Let us hope that the progressive point of view will be maintained in the future with the support of the people. In Manchester this is already provided for, without any Act of Parliament. We do not need Acts of Parliament in Manchester to compel us to do anything proper so far as the safeguarding of the life of the children is concerned. If we have adopted these measures in Manchester and in Lancashire, why should not the children in other areas not also have the benefit of the adoption of these measures, and why should not the authorities of those areas be compelled to provide those facilities which we are seeking for our children?
I feel myself that to leave this to local option is not ensuring the purpose we have in this Bill. If the Government were serious about safeguarding the lives of the children there would be no ifs and buts about the matter. They would say the local authority shall provide the patrols. The fact that they are making it purely optional shows they are half hearted about it. Yet particularly in these days we are anxious to safeguard our child life, which is something about which we cannot afford to be half hearted. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State is anxious to safeguard the children universally, and I hope that, if possible,

further thought will be given to this matter to make it obligatory upon all authorities to provide these necessary measures for the safeguarding of our children.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWER OF SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS TO STOP TRAFFIC.)

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "or second."

This Amendment really relates to subsection (2) where it is proposed that anyone convicted of an offence under this provision shall be liable to a fine not exceeding£20. Subsection (4) of the Clause provides an alternative to the magistrates to convict either on the first offence or after the second offence. Our proposal is to eliminate the words "or second" so that there may be clarity in this subsection and the magistrates may be clear as to what is the intention of the Clause

Mr. Barnett Janner: I place a slightly different interpretation on the Amendment from that placed upon it by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). I shall try to state my own version of it, which, I think, is the correct one.
This is one of the most important of the Amendments that have been brought forward, because it strikes at the very roots of this Measure. We must regard this Amendment in the light of the prevailing facts. An offence committed under this Bill is not trivial, because it deals with the possibility of removing a serious blot in respect of road injuries and deaths.
I would remind the Committee that during the last five months, January to May, there were 333 children killed on the roads and 17,137 child casualties. The object of the Bill is to try to prevent children from being injured or killed. The particular places to which special regard is being given for the purposes of preventing these injuries and deaths are those places which are to be controlled by the patrols.

The Chairman: That is rather a long way from this Amendment.

Mr. Janner: May I say, to illustrate the reason for the Amendment, that it is important to know the gravity of the situation with which it deals. Why do I say that? Under normal circumstances, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, it is possible for magistrates to take away the licence of a person who has committed a criminal offence. A person who commits a criminal offence under this Bill is not only to have one opportunity of being protected against the removal of his licence, but he is to have two bites before his licence can be taken from him or before an order can be made that he should not be granted a licence.
That is why I referred to the gravity of the situation, because it is just as grave an offence under this Bill as under any Section of the Road Traffic Act. If it is possible, under the Road Traffic Act, to remove a licence or prevent a licence from being granted under an order from the magistrates, I see no reason at all why the magistrates should not be empowered, under this Bill, after the first offence has been committed, to impose that penalty, particularly in view of the gravity of the situation.
10.30 p.m.
It is not merely a question of the magistrates being compelled to do it. They have a discretion to do it, and why should that discretion be taken away from them especially when the life or limb of a child might be at stake. It is just as important that the people who are controlling these crossings should be given an authority which the whole country understands to be the fullest authority, otherwise nothing can be done unless police officers carry out these duties.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is still very wide of the Amendment, which is only to leave out "or second."

Mr. Janner: That is precisely because the question is whether the magistrates shall be empowered to take a driver's licence away if he has committed the first offence or not until he has committed at least two offences. That is what I am getting at. I say that to make the Bill effective magistrates should be entitled to take a man's licence away after the first offence in the same way as happens in other offences under the Road Traffic Act. I hope that this Amendment will

be accepted by the Government, because it is very important that those who are given control will be regarded by the public in exactly the same way as a police officer would be.

Mr. Ede: I wish to support this Amendment, and I do so as a magistrate who has from time to time to adjudicate on offences similar to these. I cannot imagine a worse motoring offence than for a motorist to disobey a sign which calls on him to stop because schoolchildren are crossing the road. I am quite sure that every Member of the Committee would agree with me in that. A driver, under this Clause, has to be convicted of that offence three times before he can have his licence withdrawn. That seems to me to be giving far too much scope to reckless and anti-social drivers.
I am surprised at the Clause being here at all, because I am quite sure what will happen on occasions is that in order to be able to disqualify there will be another offence joined to this one, such as driving dangerously or recklessly. We have spent nearly the whole day—I regret having to emphasise this again—discussing safety on the roads, and more than one Member, on both sides of the House, has drawn attention to the particular danger in which children stand. It seems to me that we shall render nugatory a lot of the discussion we have had today if we say that before a person can lose his licence for a breach of the provisions of the Bill, when it is an Act, he will have to commit that offence three times.
I regard withdrawal of a licence as generally the most severe penalty that the magistrates can inflict on a man. It is undoubtedly the one that motorists most dread and for which, on occasion, they will take the most astounding precautions to be quite certain that the persons who try them will be unlikely to hold them guilty of any offence that will render them liable to this penalty. That was the reason for my intervention in the speech of the hon. Gentleman when he was replying to the main discussion earlier today.
I cannot think that the Bill will be as strong a warning to people as we want it to be if these words "or second" remain. Let us be quite certain what will be the position if we leave those words out. The person will then have to be convicted twice before he can lose his licence in


respect of this offence. I plead earnestly with the Under-Secretary to agree to the withdrawal of the words "or second," so that the country shall be in no doubt as to the serious way in which the House regards people who behave in disobedience to the enactment that we are making this evening.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not quarrel in any way with the general sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman or by any of his hon. Friends. Obviously, everyone in the House will agree that to put the life of a child in danger is a very serious thing. On the other hand, when we come to deal with penalties, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they cannot be dealt with in isolation; they must be looked at in connection with the general scheme of penalties for motoring offences.
The existing provision of the Bill follows Section 10 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as substituted by Section 2 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. In other words, it follows the provision for the case where a person is convicted of exceeding the speed limit in a built-up area. That is the parallel.
The right hon. Gentleman has said, and properly said, that other charges may be brought against the motorist. If he were merely charged with ignoring the sign, it would be probably on the basis that he was not putting anyone in danger. If he were careless or if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he were reckless, quite clearly other charges would be brought against him. But suppose that he crosses at two miles an hour at a distance of 20 feet from the nearest child; there is no question there of putting a child in danger. He would, nevertheless, be committing an offence, and for that offence he could be punished as the Bill provides.
For the offence of careless driving a motorist can, on first conviction, be disqualified for one month, and on a second conviction for a period of three months. It is only on the third conviction that his licence can be suspended for an unlimited period. That is for the offence of careless driving. The Amendment would allow a licence to be suspended indefinitely on the second conviction for neglect of a school crossing sign, even where no carelessness or risk was alleged.

Mr. Janner: As a lawyer himself, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that this is not compulsory, and if exercised without proper discretion and due regard for the circumstances no magistrate would dream of inflicting it unless he was convinced that it should be done.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That seems to me to be getting into the realm where one provides heavier penalties than the circumstances warrant. If a person is careless or reckless, then he should be charged with carelessness or recklessness; but, if he is charged with ignoring a signal, where there is no carelessness or recklessness, then he should be dealt with in the same manner as one who has ignored the speed limit—and nothing more. Both offences are bad, and should be stopped, but I suggest to the Committee that the two things run parallel, and I ask right hon. and hon. Members to stand by the Bill as drafted.

Mr. F. Blackburn: If I may say so, it would appear that the Government rather thinks that they are dealing with dogs, and giving them the benefit of the first bite. Here we are dealing with an important matter, but it seems, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's reply, that we are making a farce of the debate which occupied the House earlier today. Where a signal is ignored, and the life of a child is at stake, magistrates should be in a position to inflict the right sort of punishment.
I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary is resisting this very sensible amendment, for, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) points out, the driver is not only given one chance, but must be convicted no fewer than three times before there can be disqualification. All I can say to that is that if a driver has ignored a school patrol signal three times, I am amazed that he should even have been allowed to be on the roads for so long.
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that what we have debated today is something about which we were serious; that we really mean to try to reduce the appalling losses on the roads; that we consider the safety of those on our roads as a very important matter, and intend to enforce the rules.

Mr. L. M. Lever: The conception of this Bill is excellent, but when one


remembers that the adoption of it by a local authority is optional, and then, even after that, we still allow a driver to ignore the patrol signals three times before rendering him liable to loss of licence, I think that an excellent opportunity is being lost of giving a lead to the country in this most important matter of the protection of child life. I feel, too, that the way in which this Clause is drafted is a reflection on our magistrates. After all, why should not the magistrates decide whether a person should lose his licence in the particular circumstances of a given case? How can we generalise about the gravity of an offence on the occasions when a school patrol sign is ignored?
The Government are not in earnest because of the loopholes provided, first in the matter of the optional adoption, and secondly, in regard to the possibility of a motorist being able to ignore these signals on more than one occasion before anything really serious is done. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and assure the country that they really mean business in this important matter.

10.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I appreciate what the Under-Secretary says about the distinction between the offence as drafted and careless and reckless driving. I understand him to say that an offence under the Bill may be purely technical for which the motorist is in no sense to blame and, therefore, that he should not be liable to have his licence suspended after two bites. I can understand the line of distinction between reckless and careless driving and a technically blameless offence; but if that is the reason on which the hon. Gentleman bases his distinction then it would apply to the offences committed under the Bill irrespective of how frequently they were committed. They would apply to the twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second offences. Each one of them might be equally technical and blameless. Of course, the truth is——

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that no offence could be blameless.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I was talking in terms of common sense and not in terms of legal liability. Of course, a person may be technically liable for an offence and, therefore, blameworthy in

law. At the same time, we know perfectly well that it may be a technical offence—a phrase which the Under-Secretary himself used—in a sense in which people at large would not consider the person to be blameworthy although he was legally blameworthy.
To return to my argument, where the distinction is drawn between a technical offence and a blameworthy offence—and for the elucidation of the hon. Gentleman I am using the word, "blameworthy" in the commonsense sense of the term—then if it is a technical offence there should be no suspension of licence for the twentieth, twenty-first or twenty-second time.
The reality of the position is that when a motorist ignores a notice of this kind at a place where children are crossing the street, it can hardly be a technical offence. The notice is there, the motorist knows that children are involved and that he is liable to give the children priority over the crossing. It is a case where no risk of any kind should be run. That is not a technical offence at all. In other words, we cannot have a purely technical offence within the meaning of the Bill.
That is why there is in the Bill the provision that, after the second bite, if a motorist offends again he is liable to have his licence suspended. The question arises, why should it be after the second offence? Why should it be on the third offence that the motorist is liable to have his licence suspended? Why not after the first offence?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Why, for example with the offence of speeding, was the provision about the third offence introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friends?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: There is all the difference in the world between an offence of this kind where there is a crossing and children involved, with a notice that children are about to use the crossing, and the offence of exceeding the 30 miles an hour speed limit—travelling at 31 miles an hour in a built-up area. It is ridiculous to draw a comparison between the one and the other. In fact, in this case, the offence involves danger. It is in reality blameworthy, and it should be quite wrong to allow the


motorist to have two bites and only to become liable after he has committed the offence three times.
We are only in Committee now and there will be the Report stage later. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give this matter serious consideration and see whether it is not a case which is very different from exceeding the speed limit, and whether, in the interest of the children, the words "or second" should not be left out of the subsection.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I wish to raise two small points to which there may be a perfectly good answer. In a Bill of this kind we really must look meticulously at every word, because, if we do not, it may involve convictions where the House does not intend them to take place, and the contrary.
My first observation is about line 28 of subsection (1) where it deals with a vehicle which
is approaching a place in a road where children… are crossing or seeking to cross the road.
Does the word "children" include "child"? Nothing astonishes me in drafting. We are accustomed to the phrase "any person," but last night we had a case where "he" not only included "she," but excluded "he" in a draft Regulation.
My second point is in connection with the phrase, "exhibiting a prescribed sign." It seems to me that that is very loose wording indeed. If the sign is of sufficient size, it would seem to be very difficult to avoid exhibiting it wherever one may be. If it is on the ground, that is one thing. Will my hon. Friend give us an explanation of this? How and where will the sign be exhibited? If it is being carried, at what place is it to be exhibited?
I suggest that the following is a typical case which may arise. A couple of children may run out into the road on the way to school. At that moment, in order to give a last minute protection in some way or other, the sign may pur-

port to be exhibited. Is that to be sufficient in law to get a conviction? We must be fair to the motorist as well as give safeguards to the children in this matter.
We have to be extremely careful about this wording. It may well be that the answer will be given that all these people have to be trained. It may be that the training will be completely uniform. I trust that it will be, because it will be most unfair to the motorist if in one part of the country the signs are exhibited in one way and in a different way in another part of the country. These matters are of extreme importance in considering this Clause.
There is also the question of illumination. Subsection (6, a) talks about the illumination. Illumination will be necessary in December between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. The subsection says:
and, if it was exhibited in circumstances in which it was required by the regulations to be illuminated, to have been illuminated in the prescribed manner, unless the contrary is proved.
It seems to me that this is going a long way. I should have thought it would be almost sufficient in cases where in darkness the driver himself did not see the sign for it to be proof that it was not illuminated. Merely to say that because the sign is exhibited somewhere it is presumed to have been illuminated as well seems a strange doctrine. I hope we shall have an explanation of this, because it is important that we should get a proper definition of what exhibiting a sign means.

Mr. H. Nicholls: This Clause refers to prescribed signs and wardens' uniforms. That is a great advance. I congratulate the Government on putting it into black and white. I would again emphasise the importance of having uniforms uniform throughout the country. So far we have had slightly different designs of headgear. That is confusing for the people using the roads. It would help the wardens in their task if a standard uniform could be laid down which would be recognised throughout the country, as are the uniforms of the A.A. and R.A.C. scouts.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to say whether it would be possible to have a uniform which is so distinctive that the prescribed signs will be unnecessary. On


paper, the signs seem to meet a certain need, but, in practice, they hinder the wardens. These signs have a definite size and shape. Holding them is like holding an oar, and when it is windy, that is not easy. They are difficult to hold on a gusty day. As the wardens will have control of children, I should have thought that they will need to have both hands free. I have used the sign when in uniform, and I know the handicap it is. On the other hand, I recognise that there is the statutory authority.
My plea to the Under-Secretary to speed up the issue of uniforms to wardens, that the uniform shall be easily recognisable and the same throughout the country, and, if it is possible even at this late stage, to put the power into the uniform and the wearer of it, and so dispense with the rather clumsy board which will hamper the warden.

Mr. Janner: I should like to endorse some of what has been said by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls). It is essential that there should be a minimum standard of uniform, and there should be something in it which is standard throughout the country. There might be slight differences—perhaps in the helmet, or something of that sort, as we have in the police forces—but the uniform should be so easily distinguishable, and of such a standard form that no question could arise in the mind of a person being stopped about the person stopping him.
The need for this is reinforced by the fact that in subsection (6) (b) it states that
where it is proved that a school crossing patrol was wearing uniform, the uniform shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been a uniform approved by the Secretary of State.

11.0 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that the word "children" in subsection (1) includes "child." He asked about the meaning of "exhibiting a prescribed sign." The short answer is that whether or no the patrol was exhibiting the sign would be a question of fact for the court to decide. There are of course practical difficulties about finding appropriate words, but I do not think there are practical difficulties about making a scheme of this kind work.

The question of uniforms is one which is exercising the minds of those in the Home Office at present. Both hon. Members who have raised this point made suggestions of a kind of which we should not disapprove in any way. The intention clearly is to have a standard uniform which will be readily recognised by all motorists. It cannot be done immediately, for obvious reasons, but it will be done as soon as possible. The uniform must be simple and clearly recognisable, and it is desirable that it should be the same throughout the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) asked me whether it might be possible to do away with the signs altogether. There would have to be some method of making the motorist aware why he was being stopped. [An HON. MEMBER: "The police do not carry a sign."] The police have powers which will not be available to these patrols. I think that is common ground in all parts of the House that the best thing is to use the signs. On the whole, they have worked well in practice, and we had better go ahead on those lines.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. N. Macpherson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question. We have been told that the arrangement in Clause 2 is a compromise between the view taken by the county councils and by other local authorities. Is the Convention of Royal Burghs in agreement with these provisions or is this also a compromise?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It is a compromise arrangement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended considered.

11.4 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have had a fairly considerable debate on the Bill and I do not know that it needs many further words of mine to commend it to the House. There have been criticisms raised in Committee and I do not complain in any way. I can assure hon. Gentlemen who raised them that those matters will receive the close attention of the Home Office and we shall do our best to meet them where it lies in our power to do so.
The Bill was welcomed on Second Reading, and it will, I think, make a very fitting sequel to the debate this afternoon. It shows that the House of Commons is determined to do what it can to stop traffic accidents, particularly accidents to children. I do not think I need say any more, and I hope the Bill may receive its Third Reading, and be passed into law as quickly as possible.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman has commended the Bill without any very great enthusiasm, and in that he can rest assured that he is fully in consonance with the feeling on this side of the House. It is a Measure that I think could have been made more useful than it is. We can only hope that in administration it will be rather more generously assisted by some of the authorities than was hinted might be the case during the course of our Committee discussions.
I hope that the fact that this Bill has been criticised this evening, as not being strong enough in one or two particulars, will be taken note of in the country. When this Bill becomes law it must be understood that we regard it as the minimum that is required to meet the situation and can only hope that it will be so respected by the motoring and other sections of the community as to make it quite clear that we regard the saving of infant life as a matter of the very first importance.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I think that we should accept the Third Reading of this Bill with enthusiasm. It is a real step forward. It is putting on record something that has depended merely on good

will in the past, and while there are several points where there has been disagreement, this is, in my view, a really worthwhile step forward. The Exchequer are to spend an extra£80,000, and the Exchequer and local authorities together are to spend£430,000 a year extra on dealing with this safeguard to our children; and I think we ought not to accept it in any half-hearted manner.
While I accept all the other points made by right hon. Gentlemen, I think that the country ought to know that this is the outcome of very many months of careful thought in this House, and that we are sending it out believing that it is a Measure that will bring about the good results that we all have at heart.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

LICENSING BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

11.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We had some observations on Second Reading by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who hoped time would be given to the Third Reading. As that time has now arrived we shall no doubt miss his observations on the strengthening of beer, but experience less difficulty in reaching a determination. This massive consolidation Bill will serve a very useful purpose, and it is interesting as it is the first Bill I have yet come across that contains in a marginal note the word "Oxford" and no marginal note referring to the other University.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The closing observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman are such as to endear this Bill to me more than before.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (TRANSFERRED STAFF)

11.11 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Amendment Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
The sole purpose of these Regulations is to amend the provision for pensions for the staff of the Ministry of Pensions who go over to the National Health Service on 1st September, 1953, when the administration of Edenhall Hospital, the only Ministry of Pensions hospital in Scotland, and the limb-fitting and treatment centres of the Ministry of Pensions in Scotland will be entrusted to the regional hospital boards. These Regulations make the necessary provision simply of extending in these cases precisely the same superannuation options and conditions as in the past have been given to other officers when their hospitals were brought into the National Health Service. Otherwise they do not make any change in the Scottish Health superannuation scheme or establish any new precedents.
These draft Regulations will allow those officers of the Ministry of Pensions already in superannuation schemes the option either of retaining the benefits and pension of their existing scheme or having the benefits and conditions of the National Health Service superannuation scheme, and for those not in any scheme we make the provision that their temporary service with the Ministry of Pensions will count as qualifying service when they become superannuable in the National Health Service.
The House will agree that it is very much in the interests of the ex-Service patients that the doctors, nurses and other officers of the Ministry of Pensions at present caring for them should continue to do so after 1st September, and I can assure the House that these superannuation proposals will make it quite certain that they are not deterred from that end on superannuation grounds. I would add that the proposals in these draft Regulations have the full support of all the interested staff associations.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. John Wheatley: In so far as these machinery Regulations follow the pattern that has already been established in this sphere, I just wish to say that we on this side of the House give them our full support.

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT

Mr. John Tilney discharged from the Select Committee and Mr. James Hutchison added.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

RAILWAY BRANCH LINES (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. E. M. Cooper-Key: The subject I wish to raise tonight is the closing of the local railway services, and I wish to protest first against the proposal to close the Kent and East Sussex branch line passenger service which operates for the most part in my constituency. Second, I wish to question the outlook and approach of the British Transport Commission generally to the closing down of the local railway services throughout the country.
As regards our own local branch line, this line runs between Robertsbridge and Tenterden. It runs at right-angles to a number of roads from the coast to London and serves villages of various populations—Northiam, Udiam, and a few smaller centres such as Salehurst and Ewhurst, whose populations are mostly engaged in farming and hop-growing.
During the week ended 25th July a daily average of between 27 and 30 persons used this little railway, which was higher than the previous week when a census was taken. Many of these passengers are season-ticket holders travelling from Northiam to Tenterden for their jobs. As a first result of the closing of this passenger service, these men will either have to change their homes or their jobs. The alternative method of getting from their homes to their place of work at


Tenterden would be a long bus ride, which would bring them into Tenterden at 10 o'clock in the morning. Others use this branch line to attend Robertsbridge market or to catch the main Hastings-Charing Cross train at Robertsbridge to enjoy a day's shopping in London. For those in this category the only alternative to the railway will be to take a taxi or to start an hour earlier and end an hour later at night by going through Hastings.
It is no exaggeration to say that the closing down of this line would be inconvenient to many and disastrous to some, and it is not correct to say that there is at the present time alternative public road transport. It is true that this matter has been referred to the Transport Users Consultative Committee, but nobody locally seems to know who these people are or where they meet. At the same time, nobody doubts that the Transport Executive intends to close this service and has powers to do so.
It is no use hon. Members going to their constituencies and upholding the necessity for amenities for farm workers if the Transport Commission goes about the countryside closing down amenities. This is precisely what they are doing. Lord Hurcomb, in a letter he sent me today, in a spirit of achievement writes that between 1948 and 1952 541 miles of route were closed to all traffic and 1,005 miles of route to passenger traffic, with an annual saving of£1 million a year. Now this Robertsbridge-Tenterden line is to be closed down to effect a saving, but none of us is surprised that these small branch lines are losing money. Twenty years ago this particular line went bankrupt under private enterprise, but today it is still being operated on the same schedule and the same system as it was at that time. It is not sufficiently good for these executives to allow an inefficient service to continue and then to close it down on the grounds of inefficiency.
At the present time on this branch line there are 23 people employed, and Mr. Burton, who is the clerk employed at Robertsbridge Station, has worked out a scheme to increase the efficiency of the schedules and to reduce the staff from 23 to 14. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of closing down the goods service—merely the passenger service—and we who live

on the spot are getting the worst of both worlds. This suggestion which has been sent through by Mr. Burton indicates that very strong reduction of overheads and increased efficiency can be made in this instance, and it is thought that this can be multiplied throughout similar branches in the country if only the executive will take the energy and the trouble to find out how it can be done.
One does not need in this time or age all this complicated rather brass-hatted set-up. In Newfoundland where I was a few months ago, where distances are very great and the population very sparse, they use a small diesel rail car which is operated by one man, and is operated very efficiently over hundreds of miles. It does not cost a great deal to man. If it is being experimented with in this country, I have yet to learn where such a car can be seen, I believe that a lot could be done with a more energetic attitude.
In conclusion, I hope my right hon. Friend will urge upon the Railway Executive the need to make local rail services efficient and attractive instead of doing the easier thing and close them down as inefficient. Secondly, I hope he will impress upon the Railway Executive that these nationalised industries have a responsibility to the country areas. The example is before them of the Post Office, which has modernised and made more efficient their services in country areas. Finally, I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply, will agree to withdraw the threatened notice closing down this railway line.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am glad to add a word to the case which has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) because a large part of this line travels through my own constituency, possibly better known as the Weald of Kent and passes through four major villages of Wittersham, Sandhurst, Tenterden and Biddenden. It is perhaps not a particularly well-known railway line, but those who have read Mr. Siegfried Sassoon's "Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man," may recall that it features very largely throughout that classic.
I hope my right hon. Friend will make a reference to the cutting out of dead wood and that process which we are


going through now. It has been discussed on previous occasions, and on all occasions a case has been made out for British Railways that the closing down of such railways is an essential economic step because they are uneconomic to run. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in making out a good case along those lines. He will tell us that the passenger and goods traffic is insufficient, and although the 30 or 40 passengers and the farmers in my constituency who use this line will suffer great inconvenience, nevertheless the greater economic interests of British Railways will gain the day.
The unfortunate thing about all this economic argument is that it is the rural area who seem to suffer from this policy of retrenchment by British Railways. We pay a great deal of lip service to retaining rural amenities, and then we provide overwhelming economic arguments for stopping them.
I only want to make one point. This line, as far as it affects my constituency, is the only traffic route which bisects the quadrilateral known as the Weald of Kent, which is roughly bounded by Tunbridge Wells, Ashford, Maidstone and Hastings. I personally would hope that that quadrilateral would remain undeveloped, and any hon. Member familar with that remarkable territory would probably agree. We hear a great deal, however, about the expansion of London, and in the long term this railway line must play a very large part in any development of that kind in this part of Kent.
Once the railway is closed down, as it is going to be, it will not be long before it becomes derelict. It will eventually—it is, obviously, on the way out—become, as the branch lines do become, a breeding ground for rabbits, and it will never be opened again. That will shut the door to the development of the Weald of Kent, industrial, agricultural—in a big way—and, from the point of view of any major movement, as regards population, as anyone who knows the roads of this part of Kent will realise.
I hope that that point is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I hope he realises that in the closing of this railway, not only are the economic interests of British Railways being served, if they are being served,

but that quite a large part of a Home County is having its major traffic route closed for all time. I make a present of that information to the planners, although I myself have no wish to see development in this part of the county progress. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's response to this aspect.

11.26 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I have a sentimental interest in this branch line which is under discussion, for I live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) only because many years ago my grandfather, who was a Member of the House, was connected with a railway rating problem over this particular branch line.
It certainly is my experience that this line does fulfil a need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings has said, it is a useful connection for people living in the Weald of Kent with the main London-Hastings line. It all the more fulfils a need because the population of the villages which are served by the Kent and East Sussex Railway has increased considerably during the last 10 years or so. I should have said that the population has definitely been on the increase since the war.
If it is necessary for economic reasons to close this branch line, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give consideration to the problems of the people living in the area. If one looks at the railway map of England, there is no doubt that the area between the London-Folkestone line and the London-Hastings line is not well served by rail transport. The people there are really badly placed from the point of view of rail transport.

11.28 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am sorry that a matter of such great importance to a large number of people in the area should fall to be discussed at a comparatively late hour, and more particularly as no action whatever can be taken in this matter until next year. I need hardly add to my three hon. Friends who have spoken, quite rightly, so warmly in this matter, that I have myself been for 20 years and more a Member for a rural constituency, that


nearly all my interests are rural interests, and that I, like them, realise the importance of rural rail or road facilities.
To my three hon. Friends, the Members for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key), Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), I can certainly say that there is nothing settled in this matter; nor does it in the first place fall to me to settle it. There is a clearly defined procedure in matters of this kind which is well known, I think, to most Members of the House and to most local authorities. This involves the Transport Users' Consultative Committee in the area. If they have strong exception to any proposal there or elsewhere, they refer it to the Central Transport Users' Committee. No branch line whatever has ever been closed if the Central Transport Users' Committee object. Should there be a problem in which they feel strongly and the Commission take another view, then, and then only, does it come to the Minister; and then, and then only, am I in a position to issue a directive in the matter.
But as this particular case does not go to the local transport committee until 3rd December next, there is quite a long time in which local feeling can be marshalled and expressed. I need hardly add that, as I said before, I feel strongly about the need for adequate rural facilities. At the same time, as Minister, I also feel strongly that if the railway system of this country is to play its proper part, it must have regard to economic circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford suggested I would advance some figures to justify this closing on economic grounds. I will do no such thing because, although the matter is not strictly sub judice, there is to be an inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings did not know the people who would conduct the inquiry, although I thought they were well known; but I will send him the names of the members of his own Transport Advisory Committee, and the address of the Committee. Many people can send their objections. There is a very enterprising officer of the railways who can put forward views, and I think it is a good thing when railway servants have ideas for making the railways more prosperous that they should

put them forward, and I cannot believe that any difficulty would be put in his way. I will send the details to my hon. Friend.
I must, however, point out certain facts on behalf of the railways. If they are to face the future, they must run themselves as a business entity, and in the Transport Act the Government have given, for the first time, a measure of freedom to our railways which, I believe, is unique in the world. As a result, I hope the railways, far from passing out of transport, will have a new and more effective future. However, even if I had the power, I could not compel them to work lines where the local people have already withdrawn support to such an extent that there is no chance of an economic success. When the railways, by closing branch lines, are already going to save£1,250,000 annually, that amount may enable them to give a better service to the teeming millions who use British Railways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, referred to the possibility of using diesel cars instead of closing branch lines. This is an attractive possibility. I have been interested in this problem since I have been at the Ministry of Transport, and I have gone into it in some detail. I was interested in the remarks made about Newfoundland; because of this British Railways are wholly convinced about a 100 per cent. substitution of diesel shunting locomotives. But the railways are going to experiment with multi-unit diesel cars for hauling passenger trains in Yorkshire, Glasgow, and Edinburgh; and experience suggests that only where there is a very heavy density are they economic. I am surprised at what my hon. Friend says about Newfoundland, about which I know too, for, as he says quite rightly, there is not a high density of population. I will gladly make inquiries into the sources of that particular experience. The initial cost of a diesel locomotive is considerable and can only be off-set by a high density of traffic, but if experience shows otherwise, that is a strong factor in the consideration.

Mr. Cooper-Key: The car I had in mind was an eight-seater light diesel rail car.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that. No doubt that will be a consideration in the minds of the South Eastern Area Transport Users Consultative Committee when on 3rd December they deal with this problem.
That is the drill laid down by statute. This matter goes to the Railway Executive. They consult the Transport Users Consultative Committee. Before they even go to the Transport Commission they have the views of the local people on the proposal. The local authorities—Mr. Burton as well as anybody else—can appear before that local inquiry. Then they go to the Commission. The local inquiry will look, among other things, at what other facilities are available. There are a number of bus facilities though I agree that they may not be quite so adequate as the railway facilities. If the Transport Users Consultative Committee wish, the matter then goes to the Central Committee and, if there is any difficulty there, it eventually comes to me.
The precise proposals here appear to be that the line between Headcorn and Tenterden Town should be closed entirely and the passenger service should be withdrawn between Tenterden Town and Robertsbridge, but Robertsbridge to Northiam should be made available for hop-pickers' trains when required. I hope that, as I have a certain personal interest in the hop farms of that district, I shall not be accused of a vested interest when I say that, as I learned for the first time a few days ago, this facility might be retained. I will not pre-judge the issue because it has its proper constitutional course to run.
It is up to the local people to make a strong and convincing case, but I cannot avoid mentioning that, when I asked the Railway Executive about the amount that this railway was used—and no doubt other days might yield other figures, but I am sure that this was not a carefully chosen date to give a certain impression—I was told that in the week ending 28th January last year the maximum number of passengers using any one train was eight. The daily average was five. The total number of passengers carried over the line throughout the whole week was 118 in 80 different trains.
I am conscious of the burden of transport charges on the mass of our people and of the great difficulties of our railways, and I could not casually dismiss an argument that where only 118 people enter 80 trains the railways have at least a good case which their critics have to answer. There is also the question of alternative facilities. I know that these are difficult. I gather that there is some difficulty in particular about a direct bus service from Bodiam or Northiam to Robertsbridge.
The railways have pointed out to me in their memorandum that on an average there were only five passengers a day between Bodiam and Robertsbridge. They do not feel that this justifies a special bus service. This is essentially a matter that the local transport users consultative committee must properly consider. I gather that Bodiam is on bus route 24 running between Hastings and Tunbridge Wells at two-hourly intervals. Buses between Headcorn, Tenterden and Staple Cross run at one-hourly intervals. There are also express carriage services to London from Northiam via Tonbridge three times daily and from Tenterden via Headcorn and via Cranbrook twice daily.
These matters will be thrashed out before the transport users consultative committee. I have many difficult problems and this is one of them: how best to preserve a railway system in this country which will hold its own against the constant and proper competition from the roads and how, at the same time, to see that proper facilities are ensured in the rural districts. I make no complaint that Members for country districts should raise these issues constantly. Life in the country has enormous advantages which to many people of a philosophical turn of mind far outweigh the disadvantages. But there are practical disadvantages of which I recognise that transport is one. It is quite right and proper that Members for rural districts should constantly stress their transport needs.
I can only say to my hon. Friends that this matter would go, as the Railway Executive have always done, to the area consultative committee. All the evidence can then be marshalled. If, later, it reaches the central body and eventually me, there are other courts of appeal. But, meanwhile, I would advise them to concentrate on any arguments they may find


useful to their case and on any suggestions they may have for alternative transport in advance of the meeting that will take place in December of this year.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I merely rise to support my hon. Friends on the other side of the Thames Estuary because we on our side in Essex are faced with precisely the same problem as they have been faced with, and we have already gone quite a long way along the line of procedure which my right hon. Friend has outlined as being appropriate to this matter, that is, we have represented the problem of the Brightlingsea Railway at the Transport Consultative Committee meeting of the area basis for East Anglia.
But there are one or two points to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, because this is a major problem affecting, as he has admitted, not only Kent, but indeed all rural areas in the country. The first point is this. We have a clear impression that it is actually the Railway Executive's policy to close branch lines. I realise that that has been denied by a spokesman of the consultative committee of the Eastern Region in this case, but, at the same time, there is evidence that the attitude of the Railway Executive to these branch lines is that they are an administrative nuisance, besides being, possibly, an economic problem.
That, in my view, is a very wrong attitude to adopt because there is an obligation on the Railway Executive to try to make these branch lines pay before they write them off as being uneconomic. We have had evidence tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key), as indeed we had evidence in the Brightlingsea case, that the Railway Executive took no steps whatever to attract trade and freight and passengers to the branch line concerned, and that they were prepared to allow it to die on

its feet in order to prove their point that these branch lines are uneconomic.
That is the first point which I think should be borne in mind by all consultative committees, and perhaps by the Minister, and, indeed, more especially by the Railway Executive, before they reach a decision of this sort which affects the livelihood and convenience of important sections of the community.
The other point I would make is that the position, when the matter comes before the consultative committee, is not entirely satisfactory because members of that committee are, in fact, representatives of the railway's case. The consultative committee does its best to reach an honest and honourable conclusion in the matter, but when one of its members with voting power, and in the case of the East Anglian committee, two of its members, are servants of the Transport Commission, then the consultative committee itself is necessarily placed in a very difficult position.
Surely, these consultative committees, when considering a case of this sort should be completely independent of both the local interest and also the interest of the Railway Executive. Would my right hon. Friend look into that point, because it is one which caused us great concern when we appeared before it?
The third point I wish to put to my right hon. Friend is that this procedure which he has outlined quite correctly with regard to hearing the point of view of local people causes the local authorities a considerable expenditure of money if they are to have their case properly represented. These are usually small communities, rural districts or small urban district councils, and they have to employ counsel to put their case for them.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.